This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Health Information Exchange (105) Personal Health Records, Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Records, Patient Portals (591) eHealth Infrastructures (357) Organizational Issues (161) Physician and Healthcare Worker Burnout (112) Adoption and Change Management of eHealth Systems (731) Clinical Informatics (1050)

Published on in Vol 12 (2024)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/52817, first published .
Factors Contributing to Successful Information System Implementation and Employee Well-Being in Health Care and Social Welfare Professionals: Comparative Cross-Sectional Study

Factors Contributing to Successful Information System Implementation and Employee Well-Being in Health Care and Social Welfare Professionals: Comparative Cross-Sectional Study

Factors Contributing to Successful Information System Implementation and Employee Well-Being in Health Care and Social Welfare Professionals: Comparative Cross-Sectional Study

Authors of this article:

Janna Nadav1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Anu-Marja Kaihlanen1 Author Orcid Image ;   Sari Kujala3 Author Orcid Image ;   Ilmo Keskimäki1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Johanna Viitanen3 Author Orcid Image ;   Samuel Salovaara4 Author Orcid Image ;   Petra Saukkonen1 Author Orcid Image ;   Jukka Vänskä5 Author Orcid Image ;   Tuulikki Vehko1 Author Orcid Image ;   Tarja Heponiemi1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    1Department of Healthcare and Social Welfare, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, , Mannerheimintie 166, Helsinki, , Finland

    2Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, , Helsinki, , Finland

    3Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, , Espoo, , Finland

    4Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lapland, , Rovaniemi, , Finland

    5The Finnish Medical Association, , Helsinki, , Finland

    Corresponding Author:

    Janna Nadav, MSc


    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.

    JMIR Med Inform 2024;12:e52817

    doi:10.2196/52817

    Keywords

    implementation; health information systems; client information systems; stress; healthcare professionals; social welfare professionals; clinician well-being; workplace stress 


    The integration of information systems (ISs) into health care and social welfare organizations has prompted significant changes in patient and client work [1]. The integration and implementation of these systems are expected to provide many benefits for professionals, such as better documentation, decision-making, and information management [2-4]. However, it is noteworthy that while health information systems (HISs) and client information systems (CISs) offer many advantages to health care and social welfare professionals (SWPs), their implementation can also introduce additional stress due to the increased time and effort required from the professionals, which reduces the time available for direct patient or client care [1,5-8]. Furthermore, there are instances where professionals struggle to use the established systems [9-11], receive insufficient training or support from the organizations [5,6,9,12-14], or must constantly adjust to new working methods because of new systems. [15,16].

    Health care and SWPs work is often burdensome, and the COVID-19 pandemic placed an additional strain on them and challenged their ability to cope with everyday work [17]. Stress among these professionals has been growing in recent years for reasons such as increasing workload [18,19], staff shortage [20-22], shift work and irregular hours [23,24], and emotional and psychological challenges in patient or client work [25-27]. Consequently, poorly functioning and constantly changing ISs may increase professionals’ stress even more [11,28,29].

    Stress related to information systems (SRIS) among health care professionals has been a subject of interest in recent years [5,7,28,30-34]. A longitudinal study by Heponiemi et al [28] found that SRIS had increased progressively among Finnish physicians. Poor usability of HISs has been found to be associated with physicians’ stress [11]. Also, registered nurses (RNs) experience higher levels of SRIS when using HIS with poor usability [7] or if they have experienced an HIS implementation recently [5]. Furthermore, SRIS has previously been found to be associated with time pressure, cognitive workload, and high levels of technical problems related to the HIS among physicians and RNs [5,9,28,29]. Among SWPs, this kind of research has been conducted relatively rarely.

    It has been suggested that end user participation in IS development is central [35], as it may improve the success of the implementation and even have a positive association with professionals’ well-being [36,37]. Based on Finnish national surveys, RNs, physicians, and SWPs are willing to participate in IS development [37-39]. However, there seems to be a lack of appropriate methods to effectively involve them and incorporate their feedback into the development work [37,38]. According to Martikainen et al [38], one of the reasons for RNs’, physicians’, and SWPs’ reluctance to participate in the development is that they do not have working time allocated for it. In addition, earlier negative experiences, for example, not being able to influence the development in their preferred ways, may reduce professionals’ willingness to prioritize their time for IS development work [38]. In addition, because CISs in social welfare have often been developed from administrative perspectives [40-44], professionals in the field may feel that their opportunities to influence are weak. This may lead to a situation where professionals are cautious about the following implementations and reluctant to participate in the development work [40,41].

    Being able to give feedback about the ISs is important for professionals, as it gives them the feeling that they can have an influence [6]. Furthermore, it may also give the software providers an opportunity to further develop the systems based on the professionals’ needs. Studies conducted in Finland have identified a significant gap between the perceptions of software developers and the experiences of health care professionals and SWPs concerning user feedback and its integration into software development processes [35,37,38,45]. While a significant majority of developers (90%) expressed interest in user feedback, with 81% claiming to consider end users’ opinions and experiences during software development, professionals, including nurses, physicians, and SWPs, reported a different reality [37,38]. Only half of the professionals knew who to contact and how to provide feedback, and a mere few believed that vendors were genuinely interested in end users’ viewpoints or that corrections and change requests were implemented according to their suggestions or within a reasonable time frame [35,37,38,45]. Furthermore, an interview study among health care and SWPs found that it is central to the professionals that everyone knows where to give feedback and that it is acted upon [6]. If the feedback process regarding IS development does not work smoothly, it has been shown to affect physicians’ well-being by increasing their stress [9].

    Although there are some studies that have examined the well-being of health care professionals in relation to HISs, they have mainly focused on one professional group at a time and more on the IS usability perspective [7,9,30]. However, little research addresses health care professionals’ and SWPs’ well-being in relation to the factors that can contribute to the success of implementations. Moreover, few studies, if any, have compared these professional groups in this setting. Therefore, we aimed to examine whether the factors that contribute to the successful implementation of information systems (participation in HIS or CIS development and satisfaction with software providers’ development work) are associated with well-being among RNs, physicians, and SWPs. More specifically, we aimed to examine whether there are differences in potential associations between these professional groups. It is important to study these professional groups, because they are key users of ISs in the Finnish health care and social welfare field, and their daily workflow is directly impacted by the efficiency and usability of these systems [46]. By examining and comparing the well-being of these professional groups, we may get valuable insights into the unique challenges and stressors faced by each group and identify potential areas for improvement in IS development work.

    The specific research questions were as follows: (1) Are professional groups, participation in HIS or CIS development, and satisfaction with software providers’ development work associated with self-rated stress and SRIS? (2) Are there differences between professional groups in the associations of (a) participation in HIS or CIS development, and (b) satisfaction with software providers’ development work with self-rated stress and SRIS?


    Sample

    The data were collected through online surveys [47] among RNs, public health nurses, and midwives (with at least bachelor-level education and younger than the age of 65 years) during March and April 2020, among SWPs (with at least bachelor-level education; eg, social workers and social counselors and younger than the age of 65 years) during September and October 2020, and among physicians (licensed physicians younger than 65 years) during January and March 2021.

    The RNs’ contact information were collected by the Finnish Nurses Association, Tehy (the union of health and social care professionals in Finland), and the National Professional Association for the interests of experts and managers in health care (TAJA; n=29,283). The SWPs’ contact information were collected by the Union of Professional Social Workers (Talentia), the Trade Union for the Public and Welfare Sectors (JHL), and Social Science Professionals (YKA; n=12,471). The contact information of physicians were collected by the Finnish Medical Association (n=19,142). Invitations to participate in the questionnaire were sent via e-mail to professionals who were registered members of the abovementioned trade unions and professional associations. For RNs, 1 reminder was sent, while physicians received 3 reminders. Notably, for SWPs, the survey link was also disseminated through social media when the response rate was at a risk to remain low [37].

    The collected contact information from the abovementioned trade unions and professional associations represents a substantial portion of the respective professional populations in Finland, comprising 47.23% (29,283/62000) of all working-age RNs, 40.23% (12,471/31,000) of all working-age SWPs, and 90.51% (19,142/21,148) of all working-age physicians [39,48]. Detailed description of the data collection from RNs [5,39,49], physicians [39,50], and SWPs [39,51] can be found elsewhere. The final sample for this study included 9240 respondents: 3610 RNs (with a 12% response rate), 4640 physicians (with a 24% response rate), and 990 SWPs (with 8% response rate). The response rate for SWPs could not be precisely calculated because the survey link was also distributed through social media.

    Ethical Considerations

    Participation in the surveys was voluntary, and all participants provided informed consent by actively engaging in the study through questionnaire responses. Ethical approval for the questionnaires used with nurses and SWPs was applied from the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL/482/6.02.01/2020). For the physician’s questionnaire, an ethics committee statement was not applied. This decision aligns with the guidelines outlined by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity [52], as surveying respondents for their opinions without anticipated harm does not require an ethics committee statement.

    Context

    In Finland, during the data collection, the municipalities were responsible for organizing health and social services [53]. However, a substantial structural change took place in January 2023 with the creation of 22 well-being service counties (WBSCs). This change reflects a decisive move toward integrating health and social services, emphasizing a commitment to offering more coordinated, person-centered, and sustainable services. The primary goal of this integration is to eliminate historical divisions between health and social services, promoting a seamless and comprehensive approach to well-being for all residents [54]. The WBSCs are responsible for organizing primary care, secondary health care, and social and rescue services for their residents [55]. These counties are governed by elected councils and are funded through the state budget. Professionals working in the public sector typically receive fixed budget-based salaries in these counties. The WBSCs have the flexibility to provide services independently or in collaboration with other WBSCs [55,56].

    Finland is one of the leading countries in digitalization [57], and along with the other Nordic countries has made considerable progress in the development and implementation of HISs and CISs in the health care and social welfare field [39]. For example, health care professionals’ access to HISs is 100% in both public and private sectors, and access to CISs in social welfare is nearly 100% in the public sector and 75% in the private sector [58,59]. There are more than 20 HIS and CIS brands used in the health care and social welfare field in Finland [60]. The Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health consistently initiated national surveys focused on monitoring the status and emerging trends in the realm of electronic health and electronic welfare services in Finland. The primary goal was to gather empirical data that inform the ongoing development of these sectors [61].

    Measurements

    The well-being of professionals was measured using 2 stress-related indicators: self-rated stress and SRIS.

    Self-rated stress was measured with a validated single-item measure stating that “Stress refers to a situation in which a person feels tense, restless, nervous, or anxious, or finds it hard to sleep because of constantly worrying about things,” and asking whether the respondent was feeling this kind of stress nowadays [62]. This variable was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). For the analyses, responses were coded into 2 categories (0=no stress and 1=stressed), so that the original options 1‐2 were “no stress” and options 3‐5 were “stressed.”

    SRIS was measured with two items asking how often (1) changing information systems or (2) awkward or poorly functioning systems have disturbed, worried, or burdened professionals’ work during the past 6 months. In the SWPs’ questionnaires, the items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale and the options ranged from 1 (very rarely or never) to 5 (very often or constantly). However, in the physicians’ questionnaire, the options were in the opposite order and were therefore reverse-coded. In the RNs’ questionnaire, the items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale, and the options ranged from 1 (never) to 6 (constantly). The items were combined into a mean sum variable (Cronbach α=0.74). The mean scores were standardized with z scores to enable comparability (explained in more detail in the Statistical Analyses section). This measure has been developed in Finland and it has been used among physicians and RNs and associated, for example, with time pressure, cognitive workload, and high levels of technical problems of the HIS [eg, 5,9,14,28,29].

    The factors contributing to the success of the implementation were measured using 2 measures, which were participation in HIS or CIS development and satisfaction with software providers’ development work.

    Participation in HIS or CIS development was assessed by asking whether the respondent participated in HIS or CIS development work. There were three response options: (1) “yes, some of my working time has been allocated for such development work,” (2) ”yes, in addition to my work,” and (3) “no.”

    Satisfaction with software providers’ development work was assessed using 3 statements from the validated National Usability-Focused HIS Scale [3]. Respondents were asked to assess three statements based on their experience: (1) the software provider is interested in end users’ feedback about the system, (2) the software provider implements corrections and change requests according to the suggestions of the end users, and (3) corrections and change requests are implemented within a reasonable time frame. The answer options in the physicians’ and SWPs’ questionnaires ranged from 1 (fully agree) to 5 (fully disagree). However, in the nurses’ questionnaire, the options ranged from 1 (fully agree) to 5 (disagree) and additionally an option 6 (I cannot say), which was coded as a missing value. These items were reverse coded to ensure more logical data analysis and then combined into a mean sum variable (Cronbach α=0.89).

    Respondents’ gender (1=women, 2=men, 3=other or do not want to say), age (1=<35, 2=35‐44, 3=45‐54, and 4=>54 years), and working sector (1=public, 2=private/other) were also requested in the survey and coded similarly. These adjustment variables were used because they have played an important role in professionals’ well-being in previous studies [eg, 1,11,30]. Measures used in this study can be found in the Multimedia Appendix 1.

    Statistical Analyses

    Because the response scales in the RNs’ questionnaire differed from the physicians’ and SWPs’ questionnaires, the means of SRIS were standardized with z scores. The z score describes how many SDs you are away from the mean (mean always=0 and SD always=1). The z score is positive if the value is higher than the mean, and negative if lower than the mean [63]. This allowed us to make comparisons when we merged the data [64]. Before the analysis, we used the multiple imputation method in R statistical software to impute the missing data [65]. All the study variables were included in the imputation models and the datasets were imputed 5 times [66,67].

    Logistic regression analyses were conducted with professional groups, participation in HIS or CIS development, and satisfaction with software providers’ development work as independent variables and self-rated stress as the dependent variable (binarily coded). Linear regression analyses were used to examine the associations of the same abovementioned independent variables with SRIS (continuous dependent variable). In addition, we tested that the data met the assumptions of linearity, homoscedasticity, multicollinearity, and that the residuals were approximately normally distributed. Analyses of the main effects were conducted in 2 steps. First, the univariable effects were examined. Second, the fully adjusted model included the professional group, participation in HIS or CIS development, satisfaction with software providers’ development work, and the adjustment variables age, gender, and working sector.

    In addition, we examined the potential interactions of the professional group with (1) participation in HIS or CIS development and (2) satisfaction with software providers’ development work (in separate analyses) for stress and SRIS. These analyses were also adjusted for age, gender, and working sector. All the analyses were conducted using RStudio (version 4.1.1; R Core Team 2020).


    Characteristics of the Professional Groups

    The characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. Most of the respondents were women (RNs: 93% [3340/3610]; physicians: 64% [2978/4640]; and SWPs: 92% [913/990]) and worked in the public sector (RNs: 86% [3115/3610]; physicians: 80% [3698/4640]; and SWPs: 86% [846/990]), which corresponds to the general gender and employment structure of these professionals in Finland [68]. Almost 25% of the RNs (796/3610) and physicians (1116/4640) had participated in HIS development, whereas 33% (326/990) of SWPs had participated in CIS development.

    Table 1. Characteristics of the professional groups.
    CharacteristicsAll (N=9240)RNsa (n=3610)Physicians (n=4640)SWPsb (n=990)
    Gender, n (%)
    Women7231 (78.3)3340 (92.5)2978 (64.2)913 (92.2)
    Men1934 (20.9)249 (6.9)1631 (35.1)54 (5.5)
    Other75 (0.8)21 (0.6)31 (0.7)23 (2.3)
    Age (years), n (%)
    <351882 (20.4)739 (20.5)958 (20.6)185 (18.7)
    35‐442403 (26)833 (23.1)1224 (26.4)346 (35)
    45‐542529 (27.3)1108 (30.7)1161 (25)260 (26.3)
    >542426 (26.3)930 (25.7)1297 (28)199 (20)
    Working sector, n (%)
    Public7659 (82.3)3115 (86.3)3698 (79.7)846 (85.5)
    Private or other1581 (17.7)495 (13.7)942 (20.3)144 (14.5)
    Participation in HISc or CISd development, n (%)
    Yes, I have been given time for it480 (5.2)216 (6)202 (4.3)62 (6.3)
    Yes, in addition to my work1758 (19)580 (16)914 (19.7)264 (26.7)
    No7002 (75.8)2814 (78)3524 (76)664 (67)
    Self-rated stress, n (%)
    No3299 (35.7)1037 (28.7)1830 (39.4)432 (43.6)
    Yes5941 (64.3)2573 (71.3)2810 (60.6)558 (56.4)
    Stress related to information systems, mean (SD)e —f3.7 (1.13)3.5 (1.07)3.06 (0.97)
    Satisfaction with software providers’ development work, mean (SD)g —f2.56 (1.07)2.24 (1.02)2.71 (0.86)

    aRN: registered nurse.

    bSWP: social welfare professional.

    cHIS: health information systems.

    dCIS: client information systems.

    eRange 1‐6 (registered nurses) and range 1‐5 (physicians and social welfare professionals).

    fNot applicable.

    gRange 1‐5 (all professional groups).

    Main Effects on Professionals’ Self-Rated Stress

    Table 2 shows the results of logistic regression analyses. Professional group and satisfaction with software providers’ development work were both associated with self-rated stress. Physicians and SWPs had significantly lower odds of self-rated stress than RNs. In addition, higher satisfaction with software providers’ development work was associated with lower odds of self-rated stress.

    Table 2. The results of logistic regression analysis for self-rated stress.
    VariablesUnivariable modelFully adjusted modela
    ORb (95% CIc)P valueORb (95% CI)P value
    Professional group
    Registered nurses1–d1–d
    Physicians–0.48 (–0.57 to –0.38)<.001–0.47 (–0.57 to –0.36)<.001
    Social welfare professionals–0.65 (–0.80 to –0.51)<.001–0.68 (–0.83 to –0.53)<.001
    Participation in HISe or CISf development
    Yes, I have been given time for it1–d1–d
    Yes, in addition to my own work0.07 (–0.14 to –0.28).500.11 (–0.11 to –0.32).32
    No.008 (–0.19 to –0.20).93–0.06 (–0.26 to –0.14).56
    Satisfaction with software providers’ development workb–0.19 (–0.23 to –0.14)<.001–0.23 (–0.28 to –0.19)<.001

    aAdjusted for gender, age, working sector, professional group, participation in health information systems or client information systems development and satisfaction with software providers’ development work; R2 (McFadden)=0.03.

    bThe odds ratio represents the odds ratio for one unit change in the continuous independent variable, indicating the odds for passing from low stress to high stress.

    cConfidence interval describes the amount of uncertainty associated with a sampling method.

    dNot applicable (reference group).

    eHIS: health information systems.

    fCIS: client information systems.

    Main Effects on Professionals’ Stress Related to Information Systems

    The results of linear regression analyses are shown in Table 3. Professional group, participation in HIS or CIS development, and satisfaction with software providers’ development work were all associated with SRIS. In the fully adjusted model, physicians had a significantly lower likelihood of SRIS than RNs. Furthermore, the professionals who did not participate in the HIS or CIS development work had a significantly lower likelihood of SRIS. Moreover, professionals had significantly lower likelihood of SRIS if they were satisfied with the software providers’ development work.

    Table 3. The results of linear regression analysis for stress related to information systems.
    VariablesUnivariable modelFully adjusted modela
    bb (95% CIc)P valuebb (95% CI)P value
    Professional group
    Nurses0d—0d—
    Physicians–.002 (–0.05 to 0.04).92–0.11 (–0.16 to –0.07)<.001
    Social welfare professionals–.005 (–0.08 to 0.06).89.007 (–0.07 to 0.06).83
    Participation in HISe or CISf development
    Yes, I have been given time for it0d—0d—
    Yes, in addition to my own work0.05 (–0.05 to 0.16).29–0.02 (–0.11 to 0.07).65
    No–0.06 (–0.16 to 0.03).18–0.14 (–0.23 to –0.06)<.001
    Satisfaction with software providers’ development workb–0.35 (–0.37 to –0.33)<.001–0.36 (–0.38 to –0.34)<.001

    aAdjusted for gender, age, working sector, professional group, participation in health information systems or client information systems development and satisfaction with software providers’ development work; R2=0.15

    bRegression coefficients represent the predicted change in the value of dependent variable for each one unit increase in the value of independent variable. Negative association means that when independent variables’ values increase, dependent variables’ values decrease.

    cConfidence interval describes the amount of uncertainty associated with a sampling method.

    dNot applicable.

    eHIS: health information systems.

    fCIS: client information systems,

    The Interactions

    There was a significant interaction effect between the professional group and satisfaction with software providers’ development work for SRIS. As can be seen in Figure 1, physicians had a significantly lower likelihood of SRIS (b=–0.12, 95% CI –0.16 to –0.08; P<.001) compared with RNs and SWPs if they were satisfied with software providers’ development work.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Interaction between professional groups and satisfaction with software provider’s development work for SRIS (the SRIS’s mean measure was standardized using z scores, where the value of the z score describes how many SDs you are away from the mean [mean always=0]).

    Principal Findings

    This study examined whether the factors that contribute to the successful implementation of information systems (participation in HIS or CIS development and satisfaction with software providers’ development work) are associated with well-being among RNs, physicians, and SWPs. More specifically, we examined whether there are differences between these professional groups, to gain valuable insights into the unique challenges and stressors faced by each professional group and highlight potential areas for improvement in IS development work. Our findings suggest that professional group, participation in HIS or CIS development, and satisfaction with software providers’ development work are significantly associated with professionals’ well-being and we found that there exist significant differences between these professional groups.

    Limitations

    This study acknowledges some limitations. First, while the sample comprised 9240 health care professionals and SWPs, response rates were notably lower among RNs and SWPs, possibly affecting generalizability. However, structurally collected data correspond quite well to the overall composition of the professional groups, so it can be assumed that the results can be generalized with certain reservations. Furthermore, the response rate for SWPs may not be as reliable as desired because invitations to participate were sent via email and social media when the number of respondents was at risk of remaining low. Consequently, some respondents may have received the link from colleagues or via social media [37]. Second, caution is needed when extending findings to less digitally advanced countries, given Finland’s advanced digitalization [57]. Third, due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, causal relationships cannot be inferred. Fourth, while adjustments were made, unmeasured confounders like time pressure might have impacted results. Fifth, self-reported measures were used, not objective tests. Sixth, the ongoing personnel shortage and the COVID-19 pandemic during data collection might have influenced responses. Finally, the data collection took place at slightly different times, between March 2020 and February 2021.

    Comparison With Prior Work

    The study revealed that RNs experienced higher levels of self-rated stress than physicians and SWPs. There are several factors that might contribute to the higher stress levels in nursing, such as the ongoing shortage of nurses in many countries, including Finland [19,24]. Furthermore, our findings reveal that physicians, whose SRIS has steadily increased in recent years [28] experienced significantly less SRIS than RNs. The higher level of SRIS among RNs may be explained by the common tendency for RNs to experience higher stress overall, as supported by the earlier findings [69,70]. Moreover, past literature has shown that the implementation of IS can be complex and time-consuming and requires RNs to invest significant effort in adapting new technologies to their workflows [15,16]. This can result in heightened stress levels among RNs [1,5]. Furthermore, a recent study found that ISs have led to a transfer of work tasks, specifically from physicians to RNs, resulting in an increased workload for RNs [71]. However, additional research is needed to validate these observations within the specific context of our study.

    Participation in IS development work is an important factor for the success of IS implementations [6,72-74]. However, our findings indicate that professionals who did not participate in HIS or CIS development were experiencing less SRIS. Balancing the demands of daily work responsibilities while actively participating in IS development can be overwhelming and lead to stress for professionals. Participation in IS development work may lead to stress due to limited technical expertise or familiarity with a complex IS, leading to difficulties in understanding and effectively using the technology [6,14]. Furthermore, one possible explanation for higher stress levels among professionals is that those who possess digital competence and actively engage in IS development often have their roles emphasized and bear greater responsibility for ISs, resulting in a heavier workload compared with their peers [71].

    Moreover, professionals often encounter stress as they navigate the challenges associated with change management, such as resistance from colleagues, uncertainty regarding the impact of changes, and potential disruptions to established routines [32,33]. Previous research indicates that organizations can facilitate professionals in allocating time for IS development work through various means. These include creating dedicated time slots for development, redistributing tasks, adjusting workload, and fostering a supportive work environment [37,38,75,76]. These strategies may help professionals engage more effectively in IS development activities while managing their regular work responsibilities.

    Our study highlighted that dissatisfaction with software providers’ development work was associated with both self-rated stress and SRIS among professionals. Our findings can partially be explained by the previous studies conducted in Finland, where they found that only half of the professionals knew how and to whom to send their feedback, and only a few believed that vendors were genuinely interested in their viewpoints or that the suggested corrections and change requests were implemented within a reasonable time frame [35,37,38,45]. However, further research is needed to explore this aspect in greater depth. Prior research has highlighted the importance of effective collaboration between professionals and software providers, including responsiveness to feedback and the use of professionals’ input and expertise [6,37,38]. It has also been found that the lack of control and influence over decision-making processes, along with inadequate consideration of professionals’ viewpoints, can lead to frustration and stress [33]. For instance, SWPs often perceive that CISs are primarily developed from an administrative perspective to align with organizational objectives, thereby not fully incorporating professionals’ perspectives [43,44].

    Our findings emphasize the importance of satisfaction with software providers’ development work, especially among physicians. Physicians had a significantly lower likelihood of SRIS compared with nurses and SWPs if they were satisfied with software providers’ development work. This may indicate that physicians value the efficient performance of software providers’ work within the context of the IS development process. This finding is a significant addition to prior research, which highlighted physicians’ high expectations from software provider, particularly regarding responsiveness to end-user feedback and implementation of corrections within a reasonable time frame [38]. Physicians’ active participation in HIS development work offers a sense of job control [10], which is crucial due to their primary responsibility for critical clinical decisions that directly affect patient care and outcomes. A smooth collaboration with the system provider ensures that the IS aligns with their decision-making needs, minimizing the risk of errors or delays in patient care [77].

    Conclusions

    This study offers valuable insights into the factors impacting the successful implementation of ISs and their influence on the well-being of RNs, physicians, and SWPs. It emphasizes the importance of actively seeking and incorporating professional feedback, allocating dedicated time for HIS development, fostering collaborations with software providers, and addressing the unique needs of each professional group. In light of the nurse shortage, it is crucial to allocate dedicated time for HIS development, particularly for those involved in IS development, independently from patient care. Physicians can benefit from stronger collaboration with software providers, emphasizing feedback incorporation and job control through their involvement in HIS development. SWPSs’ unique needs should be prioritized in the development of CISs, going beyond administrative tasks and objectives. By addressing these factors, health care and social welfare organizations can enhance the well-being of professionals, improve the successful implementation of ISs, and ultimately enhance the quality of care and services provided to patients and clients. Future research should explore well-being among these professional groups in relation to other factors crucial for successful implementation, such as communication and training.

    Acknowledgments

    This work was funded by the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland (project 327145 and 352501) and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (project 112241and 414919001).

    Authors' Contributions

    JN, A-MK, and TH conceptualized the study and developed the methodology. JN conducted the analysis and wrote the original draft. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript. TH provided supervision for the study.

    Conflicts of Interest

    JN is and SS has been employed by one software vendor that produces information systems in Finland. Their employer did not provide any support to the study and was not involved in the design of the study or in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Measures used in the study.

    DOCX File, 23 KB
    1. Jedwab RM, Hutchinson AM, Manias E, et al. Nurse motivation, engagement and well-being before an electronic medical record system implementation: a mixed methods study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Mar 8, 2021;18(5):2726. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Campanella P, Lovato E, Marone C, et al. The impact of electronic health records on healthcare quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Public Health. Feb 2016;26(1):60-64. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. 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]
    4. Zhu H, Andersen ST. ICT-mediated social work practice and innovation: professionals’ experiences in the Norwegian Labour And Welfare Administration. Nordic Soc Work Res. Oct 2, 2021;11(4):346-360. [CrossRef]
    5. Heponiemi T, Gluschkoff K, Vehko T, et al. Electronic health record implementations and insufficient training endanger nurses’ well-being: cross-sectional survey study. J Med Internet Res. Dec 23, 2021;23(12):e27096. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Nadav J, Kaihlanen AM, Kujala S, et al. How to implement digital services in a way that they integrate into routine work: qualitative interview study among health and social care professionals. J Med Internet Res. Dec 1, 2021;23(12):e31668. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Kaihlanen AM, Gluschkoff K, Hyppönen H, et al. The associations of electronic health record usability and user age with stress and cognitive failures among Finnish registered nurses: cross-sectional study. JMIR Med Inform. Nov 18, 2020;8(11):e23623. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Tsai CH, Eghdam A, Davoody N, Wright G, Flowerday S, Koch S. Effects of electronic health record implementation and barriers to adoption and use: a scoping review and qualitative analysis of the content. Life (Basel). Dec 4, 2020;10(12):327. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Heponiemi T, Kujala S, Vainiomäki S, et al. Usability factors associated with physicians’ distress and information system-related stress: cross-sectional survey. JMIR Med Inform. Nov 5, 2019;7(4):e13466. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Vainiomäki S, Heponiemi T, Vänskä J, Hyppönen H. Tailoring EHRs for specific working environments improves work well-being of physicians. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Jun 30, 2020;17(13):4715. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Babbott S, Manwell LB, Brown R, et al. Electronic medical records and physician stress in primary care: results from the MEMO Study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Feb 2014;21(e1):e100-e106. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Gui X, Chen Y, Zhou X, Reynolds TL, Zheng K, Hanauer DA. Physician champions’ perspectives and practices on electronic health records implementation: challenges and strategies. JAMIA Open. Apr 2020;3(1):53-61. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y. The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(5):505-516. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Kaihlanen AM, Gluschkoff K, Laukka E, Heponiemi T. The information system stress, informatics competence and well-being of newly graduated and experienced nurses: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. Oct 15, 2021;21(1):1096. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Bristol AA, Nibbelink CW, Gephart SM, Carrington JM. Nurses’ use of positive deviance when encountering electronic health records-related unintended consequences. Nurs Adm Q. 2018;42(1):E1-E11. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Gephart SM, Bristol AA, Dye JL, Finley BA, Carrington JM. Validity and reliability of a new measure of nursing experience with unintended consequences of electronic health records. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2016;34(10):436-447. [CrossRef]
    17. Rissanen P, Parhiala K, Kestilä L, Härmä V, Honkatukia J, Jormanainen V. Effects of COVID-19 epidemic on the population’s service needs, the service system and the economy - rapid impact assessment] National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) Report 8/2020 53 pages Helsinki, Finland 2020. National Institute for Health and Welfare URL: https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-343-496-7 [Accessed 2024-10-17]
    18. Beasley JW, Wetterneck TB, Temte J, et al. Information chaos in primary care: implications for physician performance and patient safety. J Am Board Fam Med. 2011;24(6):745-751. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Colligan L, Potts HWW, Finn CT, Sinkin RA. Cognitive workload changes for nurses transitioning from a legacy system with paper documentation to a commercial electronic health record. Int J Med Inform. Jul 2015;84(7):469-476. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Gray BM, Vandergrift JL, Barnhart BJ, et al. Changes in stress and workplace shortages reported by U.S. critical care physicians treating Coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Crit Care Med. Jul 1, 2021;49(7):1068-1082. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Glazer S, Gyurak A. Sources of occupational stress among nurses in five countries. Int J Intercult Relat. Jan 2008;32(1):49-66. [CrossRef]
    22. Blomberg H, Kallio J, Kroll C, Saarinen A. Job stress among social workers: determinants and attitude effects in the Nordic countries. Br J Soc Work. Oct 2015;45(7):2089-2105. [CrossRef]
    23. Ferri P, Guadi M, Marcheselli L, Balduzzi S, Magnani D, Di Lorenzo R. The impact of shift work on the psychological and physical health of nurses in a general hospital: a comparison between rotating night shifts and day shifts. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. Sep 2016;9:203-211. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Wisetborisut A, Angkurawaranon C, Jiraporncharoen W, Uaphanthasath R, Wiwatanadate P. Shift work and burnout among health care workers. Occup Med. Jun 1, 2014;64(4):279-286. [CrossRef]
    25. Lloyd C, King R, Chenoweth L. Social work, stress and burnout: a review. J Ment Health. Jan 2002;11(3):255-265. [CrossRef]
    26. Sarafis P, Rousaki E, Tsounis A, et al. The impact of occupational stress on nurses’ caring behaviors and their health related quality of life. BMC Nurs. 2016;15(1):56. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Kumar S. Burnout and doctors: prevalence, prevention and intervention. Healthcare (Basel). Jun 30, 2016;4(3):37. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Heponiemi T, Hyppönen H, Vehko T, et al. Finnish physicians’ stress related to information systems keeps increasing: a longitudinal three-wave survey study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Dec 2017;17(1):147. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Heponiemi T, Hyppönen H, Kujala S, et al. Predictors of physicians’ stress related to information systems: a nine-year follow-up survey study. BMC Health Serv Res. Dec 13, 2018;18(1):284. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Vehko T, Hyppönen H, Puttonen S, et al. Experienced time pressure and stress: electronic health records usability and information technology competence play a role. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Dec 2019;19(1):160. [CrossRef]
    31. Urnberg H, Gluschkoff K, Saukkonen P, Elovainio M, Vänskä J, Heponiemi T. The association between stress attributed to information systems and the experience of workplace aggression: a cross-sectional survey study among Finnish physicians. BMC Health Serv Res. May 31, 2022;22(1):724. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Breit E, Egeland C, Løberg IB, Røhnebæk MT. Digital coping: how frontline workers cope with digital service encounters. Soc Policy Adm. Sep 2021;55(5):833-847. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/14679515/55/5 [Accessed 2024-11-18] [CrossRef]
    33. Burton J, van den Broek D. Accountable and countable: information management systems and the bureaucratization of social work. Br J Soc Work. Oct 1, 2009;39(7):1326-1342. [CrossRef]
    34. Lavié AH, Fernandez AIL. New social intervention technologies as a challenge in social work: IFSW Europe perspective. Eur J Soc Work. Nov 2, 2018;21(6):824-835. [CrossRef]
    35. Rytkönen J, Kinnunen UM, Martikainen S. Social welfare and health care information system developers' experiences of collaboration with users. FinJeHeW. May 9, 2022;14(2). [CrossRef]
    36. Martikainen S, Kotila J, Kaipio J, Lääveri T. Physicians and nurses in the development of better information systems: capable and enthusiastic users underutilized. FinJeHeW. May 21, 2018;10(2-3). [CrossRef]
    37. 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]
    38. 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]
    39. Vehko T. E-health and E-welfare of Finland - check point 2022. Finnish Institute of Health and Welfare. 2022. URL: https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-343-891-0 [Accessed 2024-11-18]
    40. De Witte J, Declercq A, Hermans K. Street-level strategies of child welfare social workers in Flanders: the use of electronic client records in practice. Br J Soc Work. Jul 2016;46(5):1249-1265. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Koskinen R. One step further from detected contradictions in a child welfare unit—a constructive approach to communicate the needs of social work when implementing ICT in social services. Eur J Soc Work. Mar 15, 2014;17(2):266-280. [CrossRef]
    42. Goldkind L, Wolf L, Freddolino PP. Digital Social Work: Tools for Practice with Individuals, Organizations, and Communities. Oxford University Press; 2018. ISBN: 978-0-19-087112-3
    43. Gillingham P. The development of electronic information systems for the future: practitioners, “embodied structures” and “technologies-in-practice.”. Br J Soc Work. Apr 1, 2013;43(3):430-445. [CrossRef]
    44. 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]
    45. Martikainen S, Korpela M, Tiihonen T. User participation in healthcare IT development: a developers’ viewpoint in Finland. Int J Med Inform. Mar 2014;83(3):189-200. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Viitanen J, Tyllinen M, Tynkkynen E, Lääveri T. Usability of information systems: experiences of outpatient physicians, outpatient nurses, and open care social welfare professionals from three large cross-sectional surveys in Finland. Int J Med Inform. Sep 2022;165:104836. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Implementation of the monitoring of information system services in social welfare and healthcare. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Finland. URL: https:/​/thl.​fi/​en/​web/​information-management-in-social-welfare-and-health-care/​what-is-information-management-/​follow-up-of-the-information-system-services-in-social-welfare-and-health-care/​implementation-of-the-monitoring-of-information-system-services-in-social-welfare-and-healthcare [Accessed 2022-08-19]
    48. Palmgren S, Karvonen E. Terveys- ja sosiaalipalvelujen henkilöstö 2021. 2021.
    49. Saranto K, Kinnunen UM, Koponen S, Kyytsönen M, Hyyppönen H, Vehko T. Sairaanhoitajien valmiudet tiedonhallintaan sekä kokemukset potilas- ja asiakastietojärjestelmien tuesta työtehtäviin. FinJeHeW. Oct 13, 2020;12(3):212-228. [CrossRef]
    50. The Finnish Medical Association. Potilastietojärjestelmät lääkärin työvälineenä 2021. 2021. URL: https://www.laakariliitto.fi/site/assets/files/5229/tiedotemateriaalit_polte_2021_final.pdf [Accessed 2024-11-18]
    51. Salovaara S, Hautala S, Silen M. Ability of social welfare professionals as users of information systems (IS) and their experiences of IS support for work. Fin Je He W. May 5, 2022;14(2):208-225. [CrossRef]
    52. Finnish national board on research integrity TENK. The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in Finland Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK guidelines 2019. URL: https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2021-01/Ethical_review_in_human_sciences_2020.pdf [Accessed 2022-06-06]
    53. Healthcare and social welfare system and responsibilities. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. 2022. URL: https://stm.fi/en/social-and-health-services/responsible-agencies [Accessed 2024-10-29]
    54. Nummela O, Juujärvi S, Sinervo T. Competence needs of integrated care in the transition of health care and social services in Finland. Int J Care Coord. Mar 2019;22(1):36-45. [CrossRef]
    55. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Tynkkynen LK, Keskimäki I, Karanikolos M, Litvinova Y. Finland: Health System Summary, 2023. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2023. URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/366710 [Accessed 2024-11-18] ISBN: 978-92-890-5939-8
    56. Healthcare system in Finland. Contact Point for Cross-Border Health Care. EU-healthcare.fi URL: https://www.eu-healthcare.fi/healthcare-in-finland/healthcare-system-in-finland/ [Accessed 2023-12-07]
    57. The Digital Economy and Society Index — Countries’ performance in digitisation | Shaping Europe’s digital future. URL: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/countries-digitisation-performance [Accessed 2023-03-17]
    58. Reponen J, Keränen N, Ruotanen R, Tuovinen T, Haverinen J, Kangas M. Tieto- ja viestintäteknologian käyttö terveydenhuollossa vuonna 2020. Tilanne ja kehityksen suunta. Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos, Raportti 11/2021.. 2021.
    59. Salovaara S, Silén M, Vehko T, Kyytsönen M, Tieto- HS. Tieto- Ja Viestintäteknologian Käyttö Sosiaalihuollossa Vuonna 2020. 2021.
    60. Hyppönen H, Lääveri T, Hahtela N, et al. Kyvykkäille käyttäjille fiksut järjestelmät? Sairaanhoitajien arviot potilastietojärjestelmistä 2017. FinJeHeW. Mar 8, 2018;10(1):30-59. [CrossRef]
    61. Vehko T, Ruotsalainen S, Hyppönen H. E-health and e-welfare of finland - check point 2018. 2019. URL: https://www.julkari.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/138244/RAP2019_7_e-health_and_e-welfare_web_4.pdf
    62. Elo AL, Leppänen A, Jahkola A. Validity of a single-item measure of stress symptoms. Scand J Work Environ Health. Dec 2003;29(6):444-451. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. McLeod S. [Z-score: definition, calculation & interpretation]. 2019. URL: https://www.simplypsychology.org/z-score.html [Accessed 2022-08-23]
    64. Sullivan GM, Artino AR. Analyzing and interpreting data from likert-type scales. J Grad Med Educ. Dec 2013;5(4):541-542. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Soft. 2011;45(3). [CrossRef]
    66. Hayati Rezvan P, Lee KJ, Simpson JA. The rise of multiple imputation: a review of the reporting and implementation of the method in medical research. BMC Med Res Methodol. Apr 7, 2015;15(1):30. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. van Ginkel JR, Linting M, Rippe RCA, van der Voort A. Rebutting existing misconceptions about multiple imputation as a method for handling missing data. J Pers Assess. 2020;102(3):297-308. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Tevameri T. Overview of the workforce in the health and social care sector: a review of current changes in the operating environment and a longer-term review. Ministry of Labour and the Economy. URL: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/162852 [Accessed 2024-10-17]
    69. Lou NM, Montreuil T, Feldman LS, et al. Nurses’ and physicians’ distress, burnout, and coping strategies during COVID-19: stress and impact on perceived performance and intentions to quit. J Contin Educ Health Prof. Jan 1, 2022;42(1):e44-e52. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Goni A, Hasan MJ, Kotseva K. Stress among health care workers (doctors and nurses) as an impact of COVID-19 pandemic. OAlib. 2022;09(3):1-29. [CrossRef]
    71. Lottonen T, Kaihlanen AM, Nadav J, Hilama P, Heponiemi T. Nurses’ and physicians’ perceptions of the impact of eHealth and information systems on the roles of health care professionals: A qualitative descriptive study. Health Informatics J. 2024;30(1):14604582241234261. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Labrecque M, et al. Systematic review of factors influencing the adoption of information and communication technologies by healthcare professionals. J Med Syst. Feb 2012;36(1):241-277. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Ross J, Stevenson F, Lau R, Murray E. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implementation Sci. Dec 2016;11(1):146. [CrossRef]
    74. Mair FS, May C, O’Donnell C, Finch T, Sullivan F, Murray E. Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. May 1, 2012;90(5):357-364. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Kushniruk A, Nøhr C. Participatory design, user involvement and health IT evaluation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;222:139-151. [Medline]
    76. 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]
    77. A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Q. 2005;29(3):461. [CrossRef]

    ‎
    CIS: client information system
    HIS: health information system
    IS: information system
    OR: odds ratio
    RN: registered nurse
    SRIS: stress related to information systems
    SWP: social welfare professional
    WBSC: well-being service county

    Edited by Jennifer Hefner; submitted 16.09.23; peer-reviewed by Hatem Alsaqqa, Stewart Babbott; final revised version received 13.01.24; accepted 15.08.24; published 21.11.24.

    Copyright

    © Janna Nadav, Anu-Marja Kaihlanen, Sari Kujala, Ilmo Keskimäki, Johanna Viitanen, Samuel Salovaara, Petra Saukkonen, Jukka Vänskä, Tuulikki Vehko, Tarja Heponiemi. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (https://medinform.jmir.org), 21.11.2024.

    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 Medical Informatics, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://medinform.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.