MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407178907 · doi:10.6000/1929-6029.2025.14.03

Assessing the Impact of Human and Technological Factors on Hospital Management Information System Utilization: A Case Study at Hospital X In Padang City Indonesia

2025· article· en· W4407178907 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tosi Rahmaddian, Novia Zulfa Hanum, Intan Kamala Aisyiah, Nurmaines Adhyka, Sukarsi Rusti, Laiza Faaghna

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHospital information systemBusinessOperations managementInformation systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the application of the HOT-Fit method, which evaluates the relationship between Human, Technology, and Net Benefit components within the Hospital Management Information System (HMIS) at Hospital X Padang. The Human component is assessed based on system usage and user satisfaction, while the Technology component is analyzed through information quality, service quality, and system quality. This study employs a quantitative crosssectional design, with the research population comprising all active users of the HMIS application at Hospital X Padang, including employees from various departments interacting with the system. The research aims to determine the extent to which the Human and Technology components influence the Net Benefit of the HMIS and to explore these relationships in greater depth. The findings reveal a significant relationship between the Human component and the Net Benefit, as well as between the Technology component and the Net Benefit of the HMIS. Among the factors examined, Technology emerges as the most dominant factor affecting the Net Benefit of the system. These results provide valuable insights for optimizing the implementation and impact of HMIS in healthcare settings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.436 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical ResearchSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207