Impact of artificial intelligence on electronic health record-related burnouts among healthcare professionals: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) has revolutionized modern clinical practice, increasing efficiency, accessibility, and quality of care. Nevertheless, EHR-related workload has been considered as a significant contributor to healthcare professionals' burnout, a syndrome associated with emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. As modern health system explores technological solutions, artificial intelligence (AI) has gained attention for its potential to facilitate documentation processes and alleviate cognitive burden. This systematic review aims to explore and understand the impact of artificial intelligence on burnout associated with electronic health records among healthcare professionals. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Relevant studies published between 2019 and 2025 were retrieved from three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy included three main domains: artificial intelligence, electronic health records, and healthcare professional burnout. Eligible included studies are peer-reviewed original research articles that evaluated the impact of AI-based technologies on burnout among healthcare professionals. The screening and selection processes were carried out by following the PRISMA framework. Methodological quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Results: Of the 287 records initially identified, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of identified studies were conducted in the United States and Canada. The identified interventions were categorized into four domains: ambient artificial intelligence scribes, clinical decision support systems, large language models, and natural language processing tools. Most studies focused on mitigating documentation or inbox-related burdens and reported positive outcomes, including decreased documentation time, enhanced workflow efficiency, and reduced symptoms of burnout among healthcare professionals. Nonetheless, several methodological limitations were observed, including the absence of control groups, small sample sizes, and short follow-up periods, which constrain the generalizability of the findings. Discussion: The integration of artificial intelligence into electronic health record systems may have potential to alleviate documentation burden and inbox management burden. Although preliminary findings are promising, further methodologically robust research is necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes, assess usability across diverse clinical contexts, and ensure the safe and effective implementation of AI technologies in routine healthcare practice. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/pevfj.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".