Published on in Vol 12 (2025)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/51495, first published .
Comparisons of Physicians’, Nurses’, and Social Welfare Professionals’ Experiences With Participation in Information System Development: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Comparisons of Physicians’, Nurses’, and Social Welfare Professionals’ Experiences With Participation in Information System Development: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Comparisons of Physicians’, Nurses’, and Social Welfare Professionals’ Experiences With Participation in Information System Development: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

1Department of Health and Social Management, Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

2Department of Computer Science, School of Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

3Department of Social Work, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland

4Infectious Diseases, Inflammation Center, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

Corresponding Author:

Susanna Martikainen, PhD


Background: The integration of health care and social welfare services together with the consolidation of health care information systems (HISs) and client information systems (CISs) has become a timely topic. Despite this development, there is a scarcity of systematic research on physicians’, registered nurses’ (RNs) and social welfare professionals’ (SWPs) experiences of participating in the development of HISs and CISs.

Objective: This study aimed to examine how physicians, RNs and SWPs experience collaboration with HIS or CIS vendors, and what kinds of end users have participated in HIS or CIS development.

Methods: National cross-sectional usability surveys were conducted in Finland among RNs and SWPs in 2020 and physicians in 2021. Questions concerning participation experiences were analyzed by professional group, working sector, managerial position, and age.

Results: In total, 4683 physicians, 3610 RNs, and 990 SWPs responded to the surveys. In all 3 professional groups, those working in nonmanagerial positions and the youngest respondents participated least in HIS or CIS development, and 76% (n=3528) of physicians, 78% (n=2814) of RNs and 67% (n=664) of SWPs had not participated at all. When comparing the groups, physicians were least aware of feedback processes and least satisfied with vendors’ interest in end-user feedback and the manner and speed of HIS development. Those who had dedicated working time for HIS or CIS development were less critical of vendors’ interest and responsiveness to development ideas than those who had not participated at all. In all 3 professional groups, the youngest were most dissatisfied with HIS and CIS vendor collaboration.

Conclusions: Experiences of participation in HIS and CIS development were relatively negative across all 3 professional groups, with physicians being the most critical. Dialogue and collaboration between developers and end users—also the youngest ones and frontline workers—need improvement; simply increasing allotted working time is unlikely to produce more positive participation experiences.

JMIR Hum Factors 2025;12:e51495

doi:10.2196/51495

Keywords



Background

The increasing collaboration between health care and social care and the consequent need for integrated information systems (ISs) warrants studies on the end-user participation viewpoints of all major user groups. Physicians [1-5], nurses [1,2], and social welfare professionals (SWPs) [6] are not satisfied with the usability or daily work support of health care information systems (HISs) and client information systems (CISs) [7]. Furthermore, these professionals experience collaboration with HIS and CIS vendors and developers to be unsatisfactory. However, the majority would be willing to participate in information system development, but suitable means are lacking [1,2,6,8-11].

End users’ participation in IS development is considered to lead to a better user experience and increased user acceptance [12,13]. However, the characteristic inherent complexity of HISs and CISs complicates the implementation of many user participation methods [14,15]. Although end-user participation is regarded as essential in HIS and CIS development [16], without careful management throughout the software development process, participation alone does not guarantee system success [17-19]. End-user participation may even cause more problems than benefits, particularly if the ISs are expected to solve organizational problems [20]. Users may experience that their participation does not affect IS functionalities in a desired manner [1,4,6,16]. In addition, emphasizing administrative information needs and wishes instead of the needs of frontline professionals can complicate work processes by increasing the requirements for data entry and thus impair the workflows [21]. IS users in leadership positions have different needs for ISs than frontline professionals [22].

Comprehensive HISs and CISs are complex ISs used by dozens of user roles in a wide variety of use contexts [23,24]. Many countries, including Finland, are integrating health and social welfare services and consequently ISs [25-27]. One of the rationales behind this development is that those with high numbers of visits to health care often need social welfare services and vice versa [28]. From the point of view of patients and clients, treatment and service packages often include both health care and social services [29-33], which emphasizes the need for fluent information exchange between professional groups to guarantee high-quality and safe care. Consequently, end users from the major professional groups are needed in the IS development processes.

Context of the Study: Health Care, Social Welfare and HISs and CISs in Finland

Until 2023, municipalities (n=309 in 2022) were responsible for organizing social welfare services and primary health care (health centers) in Finland. A total of 20 hospital districts, jointly owned by the municipalities of the region, organized specialized medical care; 5 university hospitals provided tertiary care. Although one-third of outpatient visits to physicians are to private providers (eg occupational health care), the variety of services provided by the private sector is narrow; for example, there are no private intensive care units (ICUs) or labor and delivery units [34]. In social welfare, municipalities or federations of municipalities often purchase some services from private service providers and non-governmental organizations (n=3971 in 2017) [27]. In 2018, there were 19,627 working-age physicians, 70,198 RNs, and 34,523 SWPs in Finland [35-37].

In Finland, the first HISs and CISs were implemented in the 1970s [27]. While only every tenth US hospital used electronic health records (EHRs) as late as in 2010 [38], in Finnish public health care, HIS coverage had already reached 100% by 2007, and by 2014 CISs covered almost all public social services [39,40]. By contrast, in 2020, a quarter of nonpublic social welfare organizations still operated on paper [27,41].

All public hospitals and health centers had joined the Kanta services (national patient data repository and electronic prescription system) by 2015 [42,43], but implementation of the national data repository for social welfare services only began in 2020 [44]. This has required considerable resources from both health care and social welfare organizations and IS vendors over the years [45].

During 2020‐21, in public health care, 2 leading specialized care and 2 leading primary care EHR brands were in wide use. In addition, 4 EHR brands covered both primary and specialized care, of which 1 also covered tertiary care (including functionalities for eg, operating rooms, ICUs, radiology, and emergency departments) and 6 out of the 7 nationally defined social welfare service lines. In addition, 1 EHR brand covered most private sector health care. In public social welfare, 2 CIS brands were in use in most municipalities [46]. In addition, EHR brands were also used in social welfare [41]. In 2018‐21, a new IS was deployed in Southern Finland with 47,000 end users.

Research Questions

In this study, we examined the experiences of physicians, registered nurses (RNs) and SWPs of participating in HIS or CIS development. The data were gathered in 3 large Finnish national surveys in 2020 and 2021. The research questions were as follows:

  1. What experiences do physicians, RNs and SWPs have of collaboration with HIS and CIS vendors?
  2. Do participation experiences vary by managerial position, employment sector, or age?
  3. What types of physicians, RNs and SWPs have participated in HIS and CIS development?

Survey

This study was part of large national cross-sectional HIS and CIS usability surveys conducted among SWPs and RNs in 2020, and physicians in 2021 [47]. The survey questionnaires and data are available online [47]. The surveys were based on the validated National Usability-Focused HIS Scale [48] and included a section on end users’ experiences of participation in HIS or CIS development (Table 1). The statements were originally created and piloted for the national physician survey in 2010 [4,5], and the same statements have been used in later surveys for physicians [1], for RNs [8,49], and SWPs [6]. The survey method and the questionnaire have been described in detail previously [4,5,48].

Table 1. Questionnaire statements.
Questions and statement/option designationsStatements and options
Question (1) What has been your experience of providing feedback on the information systems you use and their development? please assess the following statements based on your experience. Response options: Fully agree / Somewhat agree / Neither agree nor disagree / Somewhat disagree / Fully disagree
Statement AI know how and to whom I can send feedback about the system if I wish to do so.
Statement BThe system vendor is interested in feedback about the system provided by the end users.
Statement CThe system vendor implements corrections and change requests according to the suggestions of the end users.
Statement DCorrections and change requests are implemented within a reasonable time frame.
Question (2) Have you participated in information systems development work?
Option AYes, some of my working time has been allocated for such development work
Option BYes, in addition to my work
Option CNo

The link to the survey questionnaire was sent to the members of the Finnish Medical Association (FMA) (>90%) (email address available, n=19,142), RN members of the Finnish Nursing Association, the National Association of Health and Welfare Professionals, and the National Professional Association (n=58,276), and SWPs with at least a Bachelor’s degree who were members of the following trade unions: the Union of Professional Social Workers, the Trade Union for the Public and Welfare Sectors, or the Social Science Professionals union (n=12,471) [9,50,51] .

The section addressing end-user participation experiences in HIS or CIS development (Table 1) was identical for the physicians and the SWPs with 5-point Likert scale response statements (fully agree; somewhat agree; neither agree nor disagree; somewhat disagree; or fully disagree). However, for the 2020 RNs’ survey, a sixth option “Prefer not to respond / Don’t know” was added. Furthermore, unlike in the physicians’ and SWPs’ surveys, it was not possible for RNs to not respond at all. Up to 25% of RNs chose this sixth option. To make the surveys more comparable, we formed a sixth category also for physicians and SWPs of those who had not responded to the statements. In addition, for the descriptive statistics in Figures 1-4 and Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1, we combined the responses “Fully agree” and “Somewhat agree” to form a new category “Agree” and included those from the sixth category in the denominator.

The statement on having allocated time to participate in IS development was identical in all 3 surveys, and the background questions included in this study were all optional in all 3 surveys, so nonrespondents were not included in these numbers.

Figure 1. Participation experiences of Finnish physicians, RNs and SWPs by leadership position (leaders versus others). RN: registered nurse; SWP: social welfare professional.
Figure 2. Participation experiences of Finnish physicians, RNs and SWPs by working sector. RN: registered nurse; SWP: social welfare professional.
Figure 3. Participation experiences of Finnish physicians, RNs and SWPs by age group. RN: registered nurse; SWP: social welfare professional.
Figure 4. Participation experiences of Finnish physicians, RNs and SWPs by working time allotted for participation. RN: registered nurse; SWP: social welfare professional.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were carried out with SPSS 28 (IBM Corp). The χ² test or Fisher exact test was used as appropriate. Statistical significance was determined as P<.05.

Ethical Considerations

According to the national ethical instructions for research, the studies did not require ethical approval (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2023) [52].

The autonomy of research subjects was respected, there was informed consent, no harm was possible to the participants and confidentiality of the subjects, and research data were protected. The researchers were not able to identify individual respondents. However, as the data for the RN and SWP studies were collected by a national authority (Finnish Insititute for Health and Welfare), the ethical approval (THL482/6.02.01/2020) was provided by its institutional review board.


Respondent Characteristics

The demographics of the respondents to all 3 surveys are provided in Table 2. In 2021, 4683/19,142 physicians (24.5% of email invitation recipients) participated in the survey, and in 2020, 3610/58,276 RNs (6.2% of email invitation recipients) and 990/12,471 SWPs (7.9% of the theoretical target group) participated in the survey [35-37].

Table 2. Respondent characteristics.a
Physicians (n=4683), n (%)Registered nurses (n=3610), n (%)Social welfare professionals (n=990), n (%)
Working sector
Public sector3654 (78)3076 (85.2)846 (85.5)
Private775 (16.5)456 (12.6)90 (9.1)
Other253 (5.4)78 (2.2)54 (5.5)
Age group (years)
<35949 (20.3)739 (20.5)185 (18.7)
35‐441215 (25.9)833 (23.1)346 (34.9)
45‐541161 (24.8)1108 (30.7)260 (26.3)
55‐641315 (28.1)921 (25.5)198 (20)
Leadership position
Works in a leading or managerial position1139 (24.3)406 (11.2)172 (17.4)
Works in other positions3543 (75.7)3204 (88.8)818 (82.6)

aThe email invitation was received by 19,142 physicians, 58,276 registered nurses, and 12,471 social welfare professionals. Of these, 4683 (24.5%) physicians, 3,610 (6.2%) registered nurses, and 990 (7.9%) social welfare professionals responded to the survey.

Participation Experiences of the 3 Professional Groups

Physicians appeared to be least knowledgeable of how and where to send feedback, with only 41% (1920/4683) agreeing with statement 1, as compared to 61% (2204/3610) of RNs and 56% (556/990) of SWPs (Figure 5). In terms of vendors’ interest in end-user feedback and the manner and speed of IS development, physicians were also least satisfied, with 16% (776/4683), 14% (672/4683), and 9% (407/4683) of them, respectively, agreeing with statements 2, 3, and 4, as compared to 26% (960/3610), 19% (707/3610), and 13% (481/3610), respectively, of RNs and 25% (225/990), 19% (180/990), and 13% (122/990), respectively, of SWPs (Figure 5). In total, 76% (3528/4683) of physicians, 78% (2814/3610) of RNs and 67% (664/990) of SWPs had not participated at all in HIS or CIS development (Figure 6).

Figure 5. Experiences of physicians, RNs and SWPs of collaboration with health care information system and client information system developers. RN: registered nurse; SWP: social welfare professional.
Figure 6. Participation in information system development work by professional group. RN: registered nurse; SWP: social welfare professional.

Factors Associated With Participation Experiences

Leaders, particularly among RNs, were more aware of how and where to send system feedback (statement 1) than those working in nonmanagerial positions (Figures 1-4). Leaders in all 3 professional groups were more satisfied with the system vendor collaboration (statements 2‐4) than the others. The working sector did not impact end users’ experiences. In all professional groups, the youngest appeared least aware of how and where to send feedback and least satisfied with the collaboration. Those who had participated in HIS or CIS development considered IS vendors more interested in feedback and were more satisfied with the manner and speed of system improvements and corrections.

Factors Associated With Having Participated in HIS or CIS Development

In all 3 professional groups, leaders had participated more in IS development than their colleagues in nonleadership positions (Figure 6).

Among physicians and RNs, but not SWPs, those working in the private sector had participated less than their public sector colleagues (Table 3). In all 3 professional groups, the youngest had participated the least (Table 3).

Table 3. Participation in development by allocated working time.
Participated in developmentYes, allotted working time, n (%)aYes, but no allotted working time, n (%)aNot at all, n (%)a
Leadership position
Physicians
Leaders85 (7.5)403 (35.7)640 (56.7)
Others115 (3.3)514 (14.6)2887 (82.1)
RNsb
Leaders54 (13.3)131 (32.3)221 (54.4)
Others162 (5.1)449 (14)2593 (80.9)
SWPsc
Leaders11 (6.4)83 (48.3)78 (45.3)
Others50 (6.1)180 (22.1)586 (71.8)
Working sector
Physicians
Public161 (4.4)764 (21)2705 (74.5)
Private26 (3.4)104 (13.5)639 (83.1)
Other13 (5.3)49 (20)183 (74.7)
RNs
Public188 (6.1)500 (16.3)2388 (77.6)
Private23 (5)65 (14.3)368 (80.7)
Other5 (6.4)15 (19.2)58 (74.4)
SWPs
Public53 (6.3)218 (25.8)573 (67.9)
Private6 (6.7)24 (26.7)60 (66.7)
Other2 (3.7)21 (38.9)31 (57.4)
Age group (years)
Physicians
Age group<3520 (2.1)93 (9.9)827 (88)
Age group 35‐4459 (4.9)227 (18.8)920 (76.3)
Age group 45‐5468 (5.9)299 (25.9)787 (68.2)
Age group 55‐6452 (4)289 (22.2)962 (73.8)
RNs
Age group<3534 (4.6)89 (12)616 (83.4)
Age group 35‐4453 (6.4)134 (16.1)646 (77.6)
Age group 45‐5483 (7.5)186 (16.8)839 (75.7)
Age group 55‐6445 (4.9)166 (18)710 (77.1)
SWPs
Age group<3513 (7.1)32 (17.5)138 (75.4)
Age group 35‐4423 (6.6)97 (28)226 (65.3)
Age group 45‐5413 (5)84 (32.3)163 (62.7)
Age group 55‐6412 (6.1)50 (25.3)136 (68.7)

aDenominators for calculating percentages are the sum of n values for each row

bRN: registered nurse

cSWP: social welfare professional


Overview

To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess how the major professional groups in the health care and social welfare sector, that is, physicians, RNs, and SWPs, view HIS and CIS development participation. The responses were analyzed by managerial position, employment sector, and age group. Furthermore, we examined which types of professionals have participated in HIS and CIS development.

RNs and SWPs Highly Aware of to Whom and How to Send Development-Related Feedback

The majority of RN (2204/3610, 61%) and SWP (556/990, 56%) respondents knew how and to whom to send development-related feedback; the respective proportion for physicians was 41% (1920/4683). The difference may be explained by mentoring or superuser and training programs during and after HIS implementations among RNs [9,53]. On the other hand, since the response rate among RNs and SWPs was relatively low, those who responded were probably more interested in ISs and thus more aware of HIS and CIS development than those who did not. The findings concur with our earlier studies, which have shown that physicians tend to be more critical towards their HIS compared with RNs and SWPs [2,5].

Leadership and its competence play an important role in the implementation of ISs and investment of resources in digitalization [22,54].

In this study, leaders in all professions and those with allotted working time for HIS or CIS development were more aware of feedback processes than others. These are usually responsible for the orientation of personnel, furthermore, they are often the ones to whom other personnel report development ideas or problems with HIS or CIS use. In all 3 professional groups the youngest were least aware of the feedback processes; whereas the youngest often have mentors who also help with HIS or CIS related problems, it is also probable that the currently available means are not suitable for the younger generations.

Leaders Critical About Cooperation

Although leaders had more often dedicated working time and participated more often in the development of HISs or CISs than the others, they were critical about cooperation with vendors. Their information needs, informatics competencies, and partly also the ISs differ from those working in nonmanagerial positions [55]. The particularly negative viewpoints of physician leaders may be impacted by most of them regularly using HISs for direct patient care, unlike RN or SWP managers who mainly use HISs or CISs for managerial purposes [56]. The most recent study shows that RN managers are able to use HISs for their managerial duties. Due to poor system integration, they need to gather data from different systems for management, which wastes resources inefficiently [22].

Those With Dedicated Working Time Less Dissatisfied With Vendor Cooperation

Those who had dedicated working time for HIS or CIS development were less dissatisfied with vendors’ interest and responsiveness to development ideas than those who had not participated at all. They are likely to be more aware of the development processes and timelines of their respective HISs or CISs. Furthermore, since they have been chosen by their respective organizations as participants in HIS or CIS development, their ideas are more likely to become realized. Earlier studies have also found that user participation increases acceptance and active use of HISs contributes to the acceptance and increased active use of HISs [57]. Although not all development ideas are suitable for execution and not all end users can be expected to spend considerable working time on HIS or CIS development, to achieve better engagement in the use of ISs, users need to experience that they are heard and understood [57].

The Youngest Least Satisfied With Vendor Cooperation

Similar to the findings of our previous studies [1,4,6], the youngest were the most dissatisfied with vendors’ interest in feedback. This is a particularly important finding as it suggests that the current ways of engaging professionals will not become more suitable or even acceptable to future generations. Barchielli et al [58] also found that younger nurses rely on their colleagues’ opinions of health technology use, while older nurses rely on their own experiences.

What Kinds of Users Have Participated in HIS or CIS Development?

Previous studies have shown that impactful participation in IS development requires dedicated working time [58]. Of those working in nonmanagerial positions, 72%‐82% responded that they have not participated at all in HIS or CIS development, whereas the respective proportion for leaders was 45%‐57%. Physician and RN leaders were most likely to have allotted working time for HIS development. Our findings agree with several studies suggesting that managerial viewpoints are likely to become overrepresented in IS development [59,60]. Although the data produced by the ISs is essential for leadership and management purposes, if the participating leaders are not engaged in clinical work or practice the solutions may end up not supporting the needs of frontline workers [61,62].

Health care professionals working in the private sector participated less than their public sector colleagues, among SWPs the differences were minimal. As the majority of Finnish private sector physicians work as private practitioners, their participation would usually result in decreased earnings. It is also likely that the lack of most complex patients in private healthcare reduces the need for HIS development.

In all 3 professional groups, the youngest participated the least. This may be because they are at the stage of learning the clinical content of their work and their employers may not want to invest their time in HIS or CIS development. Khairat et al [62] also report underrepresentation of physicians in specialization training in HIS development groups. Although not possessing advanced professional skills, the youngest are not burdened with old, often paper-based workflows, which could assist in redesigning processes and enhance the use of newer technologies [62].

How to Improve Satisfaction in HIS and CIS Development

The development processes of large-scale complex systems such as HIS and CIS are typically dominated by cooperative activities involving multiple stakeholders [63-65]. Different information needs must be identified, prioritized, and communicated clearly enough to the IS designers and developers [65].

It remains challenging to increase user input and select appropriate participants and human-centered design methods through the different phases of the participatory development cycle [15,20]. Identifying other factors that influence user experiences, such as decisions made by regulators, policymakers, and administrators, may assist in developing better HISs and CISs [66]. Previous studies have recognized the importance of clinical informaticists who also use HISs or CISs in clinical work in communicating end users’ needs and feedback to designers and developers [6,67-75]. From the organizational perspective, the benefits can be seen beyond the IS implementation phase [76]: informatics competent social and health care professionals have been found to be able to improve patient safety and patient care outcomes [67]. In social welfare, however, this role is still being developed [74,75].

Limitations

Our study has some limitations. First, compared with physicians, the lower response rates among RNs and SWPs are likely to have resulted in the selection of more involved and interested participants among these professional groups.

Second, the response rates were highest for physicians. The FMA, which was responsible for collecting the physician data, has a long history of conducting surveys among physicians, the results of which are used in FMA policies. However, the number of participating professionals from all 3 professional groups in the national level studies can be considered high compared to other similar studies [50].

The RNs questionnaire respondents, comprising nurses from various sectors including hospitals, health centers, private practice, and social care, were found to align with the target population according to Statistics Finland’s employment data for nurses, midwives, and community nurses [9].

During data collection with SWPs questionnaire, incomplete contact information in membership registries limited survey outreach. To compensate, survey invitations were distributed also through sector networks and social media. The study’s final sample comprised 990 SWP respondents, with an estimated response rate of 8%. It’s important to note this limitation when interpreting findings. Nonetheless, the sample size was considerable and exhibited diversity in age, service backgrounds, and geographical representation across Finland [51].

Third, our questionnaire did not cover how end users were involved in HIS or CIS development and whether the means of participation would impact satisfaction with the process and the end results. Further research is needed on best practices of user participation in the development of complex HIS and CIS systems.

Conclusion

The fluent use of HISs and CISs is a prerequisite for efficient and safe health care and social welfare, as currently professionals spend a considerable part of their working time with ISs and rely on them as their primary source of information. User participation of all major professional groups—physicians, RNs and SWPs—and their involvement in development are essential for the success of complex HIS or CIS. Compared with RNs and SWPs, physicians appeared to be more critical towards IS vendors and the success of participatory HIS development. As even those with allotted working time were mostly dissatisfied with vendor cooperation, it is evident that simply allocating more end users’ working time for HIS and CIS development will not guarantee satisfaction; rather, dialogue between end users and developers needs improvement. New means are needed to better engage all end-user groups, particularly the youngest ones and those working in nonmanagerial positions.

Acknowledgments

This study was part of larger projects supported by the Strategic Research Council of the Academy of Finland (projects 303607 and 327145) and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (project 112241). We thank the Finnish Medical Association, the University of Oulu, University of Eastern Finland, the Union of Health and Social Care Professionals in Finland, the Finnish Nurses Association, the National Association of Health and Welfare Professionals, the National Professional Association, the Union of Professional Social Workers, the Trade Union for the Public and Welfare Sectors, and the Social Science Professionals Union for their collaboration. We would also like to thank the respondents to the questionnaires. According to the local and national ethical instructions for research (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity) instructions, this study did not require ethical approval.

Authors' Contributions

SM was responsible for the main supervision, writing and visualization of the research output. TL was mainly responsibile for the statistical analysis. All authors contributed to the analysis and writing of the research output. In addition, SM, JV, and TL contributed to the design of methodology of all 3 studies, SS to the design, data curation and investigation of the SWP study, and UMK to the design of the registered nurse study.

Conflicts of Interest

SM has been previously employed by 2 of the health care information system (HIS) and client information system (CIS) software vendors included in the study. SS has been previously employed by a publicly owned in-house HIS and CIS vendor included in the study. TL has been previously employed by a publicly owned in-house HIS and CIS software vendor included in the study. The employers did not provide any support, financial or otherwise, to the study. Furthermore, these vendors were not involved in the design of the study or in the collection, analysis or interpretation of the data.

Multimedia Appendix 1

Experiences of participation in system development.

DOCX File, 20 KB

  1. Martikainen S, Kaipio J, Lääveri T. End-user participation in health information systems (HIS) development: physicians’ and nurses’ experiences. Int J Med Inform. May 2020;137:104117. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Kaipio J, Kuusisto A, Hyppönen H, Heponiemi T, Lääveri T. Physicians’ and nurses’ experiences on EHR usability: comparison between the professional groups by employment sector and system brand. Int J Med Inform. Feb 2020;134:104018. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. Kaipio J, Lääveri T, Hyppönen H, et al. Usability problems do not heal by themselves: national survey on physicians’ experiences with EHRs in Finland. Int J Med Inform. Jan 2017;97:266-281. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. Martikainen S, Viitanen J, Korpela M, Lääveri T. Physicians’ experiences of participation in healthcare IT development in Finland: willing but not able. Int J Med Inform. Feb 2012;81(2):98-113. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Viitanen J, Hyppönen H, Lääveri T, Vänskä J, Reponen J, Winblad I. National questionnaire study on clinical ICT systems proofs: physicians suffer from poor usability. Int J Med Inform. Oct 2011;80(10):708-725. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Martikainen S, Salovaara S, Ylönen K, et al. Social welfare professionals willing to participate in client information system development - results from a large cross-sectional survey. Inform Health Soc Care. Oct 2, 2022;47(4):389-402. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Khairat S, Coleman C, Ottmar P, Jayachander DI, Bice T, Carson SS. Association of electronic health record use with physician fatigue and efficiency. JAMA Netw Open. Jun 1, 2020;3(6):e207385. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  8. Kinnunen UM, Hyppönen H, Liljamo P, Saranto K. Nurses’ experiences of health and social care information systems. In: Vehko T, Ruotsalainen S, Hyppönen H, editors. E-Health and E-Welfare of Finland. National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL); 2019:130-147. ISBN: 978-952-343-326-7
  9. Kinnunen UM, Heponiemi T, Rajalahti E, Ahonen O, Korhonen T, Hyppönen H. Factors related to health informatics competencies for nurses-results of a national electronic health record survey. Comput Inform Nurs. Aug 2019;37(8):420-429. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Topaz M, Ronquillo C, Peltonen LM, et al. Nurse informaticians report low satisfaction and multi-level concerns with electronic health records: results from an international survey. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2016;2016:2016-2025. [Medline]
  11. Melnick ER, West CP, Nath B, et al. The association between perceived electronic health record usability and professional burnout among US nurses. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Jul 30, 2021;28(8):1632-1641. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Barki H, Hartwick J. Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitude. MIS Q. Mar 1994;18(1):59. [CrossRef]
  13. Kujala S. User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behav Inf Technol. Jan 2003;22(1):1-16. [CrossRef]
  14. Lin WT, Shao BBM. The relationship between user participation and system success: a simultaneous contingency approach. Inf & Manag. Sep 2000;37(6):283-295. [CrossRef]
  15. Kushniruk A, Nøhr C. Participatory design, user involvement and health IT evaluation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;222:139-151. [Medline]
  16. Bano M, Zowghi D. A systematic review on the relationship between user involvement and system success. Inf Softw Technol. Feb 2015;58:148-169. [CrossRef]
  17. Bano M, Zowghi D, da Rimini F. User satisfaction and system success: an empirical exploration of user involvement in software development. Empir Softw Eng. Oct 2017;22(5):2339-2372. [CrossRef]
  18. Johnson L. Effective organizational communication for large-scale healthcare information technology initiatives. In: McCormick KA, Gugerty B, Mattison JE, editors. Healthcare Information Technology Exam Guide for CHTS and CAHIMS Certification. McGraw Hill Education; 2018.
  19. Rahimi B, Karimian S, Ghaznavi A, Heydarlou MJ. Development and evaluation of dental image exchange and management system: a user-centered perspective. arXiv. Preprint posted online on Jun 4, 2022. [CrossRef]
  20. Gillingham P. Electronic information systems in human service organisations: the what, who, why and how of information. Br J Soc Work. Jul 2015;45(5):1598-1613. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  21. Gillingham P. Electronic information systems and human services organisations: avoiding the pitfalls of participatory design. Br J Soc Work. Mar 1, 2015;45(2):651-666. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  22. Saranto K, Koponen S, Vehko T, Kivekäs E. Nurse managers’ opinions of information system support for performance management: a correlational study. Methods Inf Med. Jun 2023;62(S 01):e63-e72. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  23. Sittig DF, Wright A, Coiera E, et al. Current challenges in health information technology-related patient safety. Health Informatics J. Mar 2020;26(1):181-189. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  24. Gillingham P. Developments in electronic information systems in social welfare agencies: from simple to complex. Br J Soc Work. Jan 1, 2019;49(1):135-146. [CrossRef]
  25. Vilpponen H, Grundström M, Abrahamsson P, University of Jyväskylä, Finland and City of Kerava, Finland. Combining social service and healthcare as the first country in the world: exploring the impacts on information systems. J Adv Infor Tech. 2018;9(4):84-88. [CrossRef]
  26. Atherton IM, Lynch E, Williams AJ, Witham MD. Barriers and solutions to linking and using health and social care data in Scotland. Br J Soc Work. Jul 2015;45(5):1614-1622. [CrossRef]
  27. Vehko T, Ruotsalainen S, Hyppönen H, editors. E-health and e-welfare of Finland. Check point 2018. Julkari. National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL); 2019. URL: https:/​/www.​julkari.fi/​bitstream/​handle/​10024/​138244/​RAP2019_7_e-health_and_e-welfare_web_4.​pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y [Accessed 2025-01-06]
  28. Hunt KA, Weber EJ, Showstack JA, Colby DC, Callaham ML. Characteristics of frequent users of emergency departments. Ann Emerg Med. Jul 2006;48(1):1-8. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  29. Smits FTM, Mohrs JJ, Beem EE, Bindels PJE, van Weert HCPM. Defining frequent attendance in general practice. BMC Fam Pract. Apr 15, 2008;9(21):21. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  30. Vedsted P, Christensen MB. Frequent attenders in general practice care: a literature review with special reference to methodological considerations. Public Health. Feb 2005;119(2):118-137. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  31. Social determinants of health. World Health Organization. 2022. URL: https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health#tab=tab_1 [Accessed 2025-01-06]
  32. Jørgensen JT, Andersen JS, Tjønneland A, Andersen ZJ. Determinants of frequent attendance in Danish general practice: a cohort-based cross-sectional study. BMC Fam Pract. Jan 28, 2016;17(9):9. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  33. Report to Congress; social risk factors and performance under medicare’s value-based purchasing programs. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. 2016. URL: https:/​/aspe.​hhs.gov/​reports/​report-congress-social-risk-factors-performance-under-medicares-value-based-purchasing-programs [Accessed 2025-01-06]
  34. Social welfare and health care system in Finland, responsibilities. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. 2019. URL: https://stm.fi/en/social-and-health-services/responsible-agencies [Accessed 2025-01-06]
  35. Lääkärityövoima [Web page in Finnish]. Finnish Medical Association. 2022. URL: https://www.laakariliitto.fi/laakariliitto/tutkimus/laakarityovoima/ [Accessed 2025-01-06]
  36. Terveys- ja sosiaalipalvelujen henkilöstö 2021 [Web page in Finnish]. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. URL: https:/​/thl.​fi/​fi/​tilastot-ja-data/​tilastot-aiheittain/​sosiaali-ja-terveydenhuollon-resurssit/​terveys-ja-sosiaalipalvelujen-henkilosto [Accessed 2025-01-06]
  37. Terveys- ja sosiaalipalvelujen henkilöstö 2018: tuleva sote-uudistus koskee 7,3 prosenttia työssäkäyvistä [Web page in Finnish]. Julkari. 2021. URL: https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2021121460373 [Accessed 2025-01-06]
  38. Non-federal acute care hospital electronic health record adoption. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. 2017. URL: https:/​/www.​healthit.gov/​data/​quickstats/​non-federal-acute-care-hospital-electronic-health-record-adoption [Accessed 2025-01-06]
  39. Kuusisto-Niemi S, Hyppönen H, Ruotsalainen S. Availability and use of e-welfare in finland. In: Vehko T, Ruotsalainen S, Hyppönen H, editors. E-Health and E-Welfare of Finland Check Point 2018. National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL); 2019. URL: https:/​/www.​julkari.fi/​bitstream/​handle/​10024/​138244/​RAP2019_7_e-health_and_e-welfare_web_4.​pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y [Accessed 2025-01-06]
  40. Kärki J, Ryhänen M. Use of Information and Communications Technology in Social Services in 2014. National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL); 2015. ISBN: 978-952-302-593-6
  41. Salovaara S, Silén M, Vehko T, Kyytsönen M, Hautala S. Use of Information and Communication Technology in Social Welfare Services in 2020. National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL); 2021. ISBN: 978-952-343-772-2
  42. Citizens. Kanta. 2022. URL: https://www.kanta.fi/en/citizens [Accessed 2025-01-06]
  43. Jormanainen V. Large-scale implementation and adoption of the Finnish national Kanta services in 2010–2017: a prospective, longitudinal, indicator-based study. FinJeHeW. 2018;10(4):381-395. [CrossRef]
  44. Client data repository for social welfare services. Kanta. 2022. URL: https://www.kanta.fi/en/professionals/client-data-archive-for-social-welfare-services [Accessed 2025-01-06]
  45. Jormanainen V, Reponen J. CAF and CAMM analyses on the first 10 years of national Kanta services in Finland. FinJeHeW. 2020;12(4):302-315. [CrossRef]
  46. Jormanainen V, Rötsä M, Parhiala K. Social care client information systems in Finnish municipality social services in 2017. Finn J EHealth E Welfare. 2019;11(1-2):125-138. [CrossRef]
  47. Implementation of the monitoring of information system services in social welfare and healthcare. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. 2023. URL: https:/​/thl.​fi/​en/​topics/​information-management-in-social-welfare-and-health-care/​information-management-in-finland/​follow-up-of-the-information-system-services-in-social-welfare-and-health-care/​implementation [Accessed 2025-01-06]
  48. Hyppönen H, Kaipio J, Heponiemi T, et al. Developing the National Usability-Focused Health Information System Scale for physicians: validation study. J Med Internet Res. May 16, 2019;21(5):e12875. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  49. Kaihlanen AM, Gluschkoff K, Saranto K, Kinnunen UM. The associations of information system’s support and nurses’ documentation competence with the detection of documentation-related errors: Results from a nationwide survey. Health Informatics J. 2021;27(4):14604582211054026. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  50. Viitanen J, Reponen J, Lääveri T, et al. Potilastietojärjestelmissä on yhä paljon parannettavaa: lääkärien kokemukset käytettävyydestä vuosilta 2010-2021. Usability of electronic health record systems needs improvements – physicians’ experiences from 2010-21. Finn Med J. 2024;(41):79. URL: https:/​/www.​laakarilehti.fi/​tieteessa/​alkuperaistutkimukset/​potilastietojarjestelmissa-on-yha-paljon-parannettavaa/​ [Accessed 2025-01-06]
  51. Salovaara S, Hautala S, Silén M. Sosiaalialan ammattilaisten kyvykkyys tietojärjestelmien käyttäjinä ja kokemukset tietojärjestelmien tuesta työlle [Article in Finnish]. Fin Je He W. 2022;14(2):208-225. [CrossRef]
  52. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK). URL: https://tenk.fi/en/tenk [Accessed 2025-01-13]
  53. Rhodes B, Short A, Shaben T. Effectiveness of training strategies that support informatics competency development in healthcare professionals. In: Shachak A, Borycki EM, Reis SP, editors. Health Professionals’ Education in the Age of Clinical Information Systems, Mobile Computing and Social Networks. Academic Press; 2017:299-322. [CrossRef]
  54. Booth RG, Strudwick G, McBride S, O’Connor S, Solano López AL. How the nursing profession should adapt for a digital future. BMJ. 2021;373:1190. [CrossRef]
  55. Hübner U, Shaw T, Thye J, et al. Technology Informatics Guiding Education Reform – TIGER: an international recommendation framework of core competencies in health informatics for nurses. Methods Inf Med. 2018;57(Suppl 1):e30-e42. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  56. Backonja U, Langford LH, Mook PJ. How to support the nursing informatics leadership pipeline: recommendations for nurse leaders and professional organizations. Comput Inform Nurs. Jan 1, 2022;40(1):8-20. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  57. Vahteristo A, Jylhä V. Effects of user participation in the development of health information systems on their evaluation within occupational health services. In: Integrated Citizen Centered Digital Health and Social Care. IOS Press; 2020:207-211. [CrossRef]
  58. Barchielli C, Marullo C, Bonciani M, Vainieri M. Nurses and the acceptance of innovations in technology-intensive contexts: the need for tailored management strategies. BMC Health Serv Res. Jul 3, 2021;21(1):639. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  59. Gillingham P. From bureaucracy to technocracy in a social welfare agency: a cautionary tale. Asia Pac J Soc Work Dev. Apr 3, 2019;29(2):108-119. [CrossRef]
  60. Devlieghere J, Roose R. Documenting practices in human service organisations through information systems: when the quest for visibility ends in darkness. Soc Inclu. 2019;7(1):207-217. [CrossRef]
  61. Høstgaard AM, Bertelsen P, Nøhr C. Methods to identify, study and understand end-user participation in HIT development. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Sep 28, 2011;11(1):1-11. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  62. Khairat S, Burke G, Archambault H, Schwartz T, Larson J, Ratwani RM. Focus section on health IT usability: perceived burden of EHRs on physicians at different stages of their career. Appl Clin Inform. Apr 2018;09(02):336-347. [CrossRef]
  63. Saleem N, Steel D, Gercek G, Chandra A. Significance of user participation in a hospital information system success. Health Care Manag. 2017;36(2):199-205. [CrossRef]
  64. Sommerville I, Cliff D, Calinescu R, et al. Large-scale complex IT systems. Commun ACM. Jul 2012;55(7):71-77. [CrossRef]
  65. Dalsgaard P, Frich J, Riisgaard T. Four challenges of designing digital services to support participatory design. Presented at: Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference; Oct 8, 2022; Aarhus Denmark. [CrossRef]
  66. Tutty MA, Carlasare LE, Lloyd S, Sinsky CA. The complex case of EHRs: examining the factors impacting the EHR user experience. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Jul 1, 2019;26(7):673-677. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  67. Lagsten J, Andersson A. Use of information systems in social work – challenges and an agenda for future research. Eur J Soc Work. Nov 2, 2018;21(6):850-862. [CrossRef]
  68. AMIA’s role in CIS and history. American Medical Informatics Association. URL: https://amia.org/careers-certifications/clinical-informatics-subspecialty/amias-role-cis-and-history [Accessed 2025-01-13]
  69. Singer JS, Cheng EM, Baldwin K, Pfeffer MA, UCLA Health Physician Informaticist Committee. The UCLA Health Resident Informaticist Program - a novel clinical informatics training program. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Jul 1, 2017;24(4):832-840. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  70. Sieja A, Markley K, Pell J, et al. Optimization sprints: improving clinician satisfaction and teamwork by rapidly reducing electronic health record burden. Mayo Clin Proc. May 2019;94(5):793-802. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  71. Lehmann CU, Gundlapalli AV, Williamson JJ, et al. Five years of clinical informatics board certification for physicians in the United States of America. Yearb Med Inform. Aug 2018;27(1):237-242. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  72. Cummins MR, Gundlapalli AV, Murray P, Park HA, Lehmann CU. Nursing informatics certification worldwide: history, pathway, roles, and motivation. Yearb Med Inform. Nov 10, 2016;25(1):264-271. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  73. Conrad JB, Magsamen‐Conrad K. Understanding the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on families involved in the child welfare system: technological capital and pandemic practice. Child Fam Soc Work. Feb 2022;27(1):11-21. [CrossRef]
  74. Parker-Oliver D, Demiris G. Social work informatics: a new specialty. Soc Work (Stell). Apr 1, 2006;51(2):127-134. [CrossRef]
  75. Kuusisto-Niemi S, Saranto K, Rissanen S. Informatics in social services: research, developments, and outcomes from the finnish perspective. In: Tavana M, Ghapanchi AH, Talaei-Khoei A, editors. Healthcare Informatics and Analytics Emerging Issues and Trends. IGI Global; 2015:1-26. [CrossRef]
  76. HIMSS Nursing Informatics Workforce Survey. HIMSS. 2020. URL: https://www.himss.org/resources/himss-nursing-informatics-workforce-survey [Accessed 2025-01-06]


CIS: client information system
FMA: Finnish Medical Association
HIS: health care information system
IS: information system
RN: registered nurse
SWP: social welfare professional


Edited by Andre Kushniruk; submitted 02.08.23; peer-reviewed by Amber Sieja, Wubshet Tesfaye; final revised version received 02.05.24; accepted 08.11.24; published 22.01.25.

Copyright

© Susanna Martikainen, Johanna Viitanen, Samuel Salovaara, Ulla-Mari Kinnunen, Tinja Lääveri. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org), 22.1.2025.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Human Factors, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://humanfactors.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.