An Exploratory, Population-Based, Mixed-Methods Program Evaluation of User Satisfaction of Services Provided by a Regional Extension Center (REC)

Keywords

Health information technology - user satisfaction - mixed-methods study - regional extension center - meaningful use

 

• References

• 1 Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S. et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 742-752.
• 2 Parente ST, McCullough JS. Health information technology and patient safety: evidence from panel data. Health Aff 2009; 28: 357-360.
• 3 McCullough JS, Casey M, Moscovice I, Prasad S. The effect of health information technology on quality in U. S. hospitals. Health Aff 2010; 29: 647-654.
• 4 Davis K, Doty M, Shea K, Stremikis K. Health information technology and physician perceptions of quality of care and satisfaction. Health Policy 2009; 90: 239-246.
• 5 Goldzweig CL, Towfigh A, Maglione M, Shekelle PG. Costs and benefits of health information technology: new trends from the literature. Health Aff 2009; 28: w282-w293.
• 6 Jha AK. Meaningful use of electronic health records: The road ahead. JAMA 2010; 304: 1709-1710.
• 7 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.. EHR Incentive Programs. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Eligible_Hospital_Information.html. Accessed October 13, 2013
• 8 Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The meaningful use regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 501-504.
• 9 Hogan SO, Kissam SM. Measuring meaningful use. Health Aff 2010; 29: 601-606.
• 10 Buntin MB, Jain SH, Blumenthal D. Health information technology: laying the infrastructure for national health reform. Health Aff 2010; 29: 1214-1219.
• 11 Price JH, Dake JA, Murman J, Dimmig J, Akpanudo S. Power analysis in survey research: importance and use for health educators. Am J Health Educ 2005; 36: 202-207.
• 12 Coughlin SS. Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 87-91.
• 13 Gordon RJ. Arizona Rural Health Provider Atlas. Rural Health Office, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine.. pp. 1-152 1987
• 14 Kennedy P. A Guide to Econometrics. Oxford: Blackwell.; 1992
• 15 Vittinghoff E, Glidden DV, Shiboski SC, McCulloch CE. Regression methods in biostatistics. New York: Springer,; 2005
• 16 Dooley LM, Lindner JR. The handling of nonresponse error. Human Resource Development Quarterly 2003; 14: 99-110.
• 17 Linacre J. Understanding Rasch measurement: Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas 2002; 3: 85-106.
• 18 Richards L. Handling qualitative data. California: Sage,; 2005
• 19 Maxson E, Jain S, Kendall M, Mostashari F, Blumenthal D. The Regional Extension Center Program: helping physicians meaningfully use health information technology. Ann Intern Med 2010; 153: 666-670.
• 20 Jamoom E, Beatty P, Bercovitz A. et al. Physician adoption of electronic health record systems: United States, 2011. NCHS data brief, no 98. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics,; 2012
• 21 McDonnell C, Werner K, Wendel L. Electronic Health Record Usability: Vendor Practices and Perspectives. AHRQ Publication No. 09(10)-0091–3-EF. Rockville, MD:: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,; 2010
• 22 Johnson WG, Harootunian G, Sama T. The use of electronic medical records and physicians’ attitudes towards a health information exchange. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University, Center for Health Information & Research,; 2012
• 23 Aharony L, Strasser S. Patient satisfaction: what we know about and what we still need to explore. Medical Care Review 1993; 50 (01) 49-79.
• 24 Ko HH, Zhang H, Telford JJ, Enns R. Factors influencing patient satisfaction when undergoing endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 883-891.
• 25 Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res 2004; 33: 14-26.