Information Technology Acceptance in Health Information Management

Abdekhoda, Mohammadhiwa and Ahmadi, M. and Dehnad, A. and Hosseini, A. F. Information Technology Acceptance in Health Information Management. Methods of Information in Medicine, 2014, vol. 53, n. 1, pp. 14-20. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[img] Text
Information Technology Acceptance in Health Information Management.pdf
Download (505kB)

English abstract

Summary Objective: User acceptance of information technology has been a significant area of research for more than two decades in the field of information technology. This study assessed the acceptance of information technology in the context of Health Information Management (HIM) by utilizing Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) which was modified and applied to assess user acceptance of health information technology as well as viability of TAM as a research construct in the context of HIM. Methods: This was a descriptive- analytical study in which a sample of 187 personnel from a population of 363 personnel, working in medical records departments of hospitals affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences, was selected. Users’ perception of applying information technology was studied by a researcher-developed questionnaire. Collected data were analyzed by SPSS software (version16) using descriptive statistics and regression analysis. Results: The results suggest that TAM is a useful construct to assess user acceptance of information technology in the context of HIM. The findings also evidenced the perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PE) were positively associated with favorable users’ attitudes towards HIM. PU was relatively more associated ( r=0.22, p = 0.05) than PEOU (r = 0.014, p =0.05) with favorable user attitudes towards HIM. Conclusions: Users’ perception of usefulness and ease of use are important determinants providing the incentive for users to accept information technologies when the application of a successful HIM system is attempted. The findings of the present study suggest that user acceptance is a key element and should subsequently be the major concern of health organizations and health policy makers.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Information technology, health information management, technology acceptance model, user acceptance, user perceptions
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information
B. Information use and sociology of information > BI. User interfaces, usability.
F. Management.
L. Information technology and library technology > LD. Computers.
Depositing user: Dr. Mohammadhiwa Abdekhoda
Date deposited: 25 May 2016 07:22
Last modified: 25 May 2016 07:22
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/29373

References

1. Gupta A. Exploring the acceptance and barriers to usage of information and communication technology by Irish occupational therapists. 2010.

2. Schaper LK, Pervan GP. ICT and OTs: A model of information and communication technology acceptance and utilisation by occupational therapists. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2007; 76: S212–S21.

3. Institute MR; 2002. Available from: http://www. medrecinst.com

4. Survey HIL, editor. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). The 11th Annual HIMSS Leadership Survey Sponsored by IBM: Trends in Healthcare Information and Technology; 2000.

5. Audet AM, Doty MM, Peugh J, Shamasdin J, Zapert K, Schoenbaum S. Information technologies: when will they make it into physicians’ black bags? Medscape General Medicine 2004; 6 (4).

6. Yarbrough AK, Smith TB. Technology acceptance a mong physicians. Medical Care Research and Review2007; 64 (6): 650 – 672.

7. Lin C, Lin IC, Roan J. Barriers to Physicians’ Adoption of Healthcare Information Technology: An Empirical Study on Multiple Hospitals. Journal of Medical Systems 2011: 1–13.

8. Khalifa M, Liu V. The state of research on information system satisfaction. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA) 2004; 5 (4): 4.

9. Malcolm CL. Five e-business strategies you can take to the bank. Healthcare financial management. Journal of the Healthcare Financial Management Association 2001; 55 (9): 72.

10. Yarbrough AK, Smith TB. Technology Acceptance among Physicians – A New Take on TAM. Medical Care Research and Review 2007; 64 (6): 650 – 672.

11. Lorenzi NM, Riley RT. Organizational aspects of health informatics: managing technological change. New York: Springer-Verlag ; 1995.

12. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. JSTOR; 1989. pp 982 –1003.

13. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly 2003. Pp 425 – 478.

14. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. Free Pr;1995.

15. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.; 1975.

16. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longi tudinal field studies. Manage Sci 2000; 46 (2): 186 –204.

17. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. JSTOR; 1989. pp 319 –340.

18. Koivunen M. Acceptance and use of information technology among nurses in psychiatric hospitals.2009.

19. Duyck P, Pynoo B, Devolder P, Voet T, Adang L, Vercruysse J. User Acceptance of a Picture Archiving and Communication System--Applying the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology in a Radiological Setting. Methods In f Med 2008; 47 (2): 149 –156.

20. Morton ME. Use and Acceptance of an Electronic Health Record: Factors Affecting Physician Attitudes. Drexel University; 2008.

21. Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2010; 43 (1): 159 –172.

22. Hulse NC DFG, Rocha RA. Modeling end-users’ acceptance of a knowledge authoring tool. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (5): 528 –535.

23. Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW. Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS quarterly 2003. pp 51– 90.

24. Schepers J, Wetzels M. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management 2007; 44 (1): 90 –103.

25. Ma Q, Liu L. The technology acceptance model: a meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC) 2004; 16 (1): 59 –72.

26. Lee Y, Kozar KA, Larsen KRT. The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2003; 12 (50): 752 –780.

27. Subramanian GH. A Replication of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Measurement. Decision Sciences 1994; 25 (5–6): 863– 874.

28. Igbaria M, Iivari J. The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega 1995; 23 (6): 587– 605.

29. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1992; 22 (14): 1111–1132.

30. Chau PYK, Hu PJH. Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Information & Management 2002; 39 (4): 297–311.

31. Wilkins MA. Factors Influencing Acceptance of Electronic Health Records in Hospitals. Perspectives in health information management /AHIMA, American Health Information Management Association 2009; 6 (Fall).

32. Nair SV. Benefits and security of electronic health record (EHR) use by pediatric staff: A technology acceptance model (TAM)-based quantitative study: Capella University; 2012.

33. Wixom BH, Todd PA. A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information systems research 2005; 16 (1): 85 –102.

34. Ortega Egea JM, Román González MV. Explaining physicians’ acceptance of EHCR systems: An extension of TAM with trust and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior 2011; 27 (1): 319–332.

35. Wu JH, Shen WS, Lin LM, Greenes RA, Bates DW. Testing the technology acceptance model for evaluating healthcare professionals’ intention to use an adverse event reporting system. ISQHC; 2008. p 123.

36. Pai FY, Huang KI. Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to the introduction of healthcare information systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2010.

37. Lee Y, Kozar KA, Larsen KRT. The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. 2003.p 50.

38. Zhang N, Guo X, Chen G. IDT-TAM integrated model for IT adoption. Tsinghua Science & Technology 2008; 13 (3): 306 –311.

39. Chen YC, Shang RN, Ho TY, Hesieh SC. The behavioral intention to use e systems for employees in Public Utility Company: Analysis based on TAM and TTF. J E Bus 2008; 10 (1): 305 –327.

40. Gefen D, Straub DW. The Relative Importance of Perceived Ease of Use in IS Adoption: A Study of E-commerce Adoption. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 2000; 1.

41. Keil M, Beranek PM, Konsynski BR. Usefulness and ease of use: field study evidence regarding task considerations. Decision Support Systems 1995; 13 (1): 75 –91.

42. Agarwal R, Karahanna E. Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS quarterly 2000: 665–694.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS