Factors Contributing to Successful Information System Implementation and Employee Well-Being in Health Care and Social Welfare Professionals: Comparative Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The integration of information systems in health care and social welfare organizations has brought significant changes in patient and client care. This integration is expected to offer numerous benefits, but simultaneously the implementation of health information systems and client information systems can also introduce added stress due to the increased time and effort required by professionals. Objective: This study aimed to examine whether professional groups and the factors that contribute to successful implementation (participation in information systems development and satisfaction with software providers' development work) are associated with the well-being of health care and social welfare professionals. Methods: Data were obtained from 3 national cross-sectional surveys (n=9240), which were carried out among Finnish health care and social welfare professionals (registered nurses, physicians, and social welfare professionals) in 2020-2021. Self-rated stress and stress related to information systems were used as indicators of well-being. Analyses were conducted using linear and logistic regression analysis. Results: Registered nurses were more likely to experience self-rated stress than physicians (odds ratio [OR] -0.47; P>.001) and social welfare professionals (OR -0.68; P<.001). They also had a higher likelihood of stress related to information systems than physicians (b=-.11; P<.001). Stress related to information systems was less prevalent among professionals who did not participate in information systems development work (b=-.14; P<.001). Higher satisfaction with software providers' development work was associated with a lower likelihood of self-rated stress (OR -0.23; P<.001) and stress related to information systems (b=-.36 P<.001). When comparing the professional groups, we found that physicians who were satisfied with software providers' development work had a significantly lower likelihood of stress related to information systems (b=-.12; P<.001) compared with registered nurses and social welfare professionals. Conclusions: Organizations can enhance the well-being of professionals and improve the successful implementation of information systems by actively soliciting and incorporating professional feedback, dedicating time for information systems development, fostering collaboration with software providers, and addressing the unique needs of different professional groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".