Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: A structural equation model

International Journal of Medical Informatics

Volumn 76, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 66-77

  Wu, Jen Her ^a   Wang, Shu Ching ^a,b   Lin, Li Min ^c  

^a NATIONAL SUN YAT SEN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL KAOHSIUNG UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Taiwan)

^c MEIHO UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Compatibility; Health care; Mobile healthcare; Self efficacy; Technical support and training; Technology acceptance

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MEASUREMENT THEORY; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; SECURITY OF DATA;

MOBILE HEALTHCARE; SELF EFFICACY; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE;

MOBILE COMPUTING;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; BEHAVIOR; CONFORMATION FACTOR ANALYSIS; EVALUATION; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MOBILE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM; MODEL; MOTIVATION; NORMAL HUMAN; PLANNING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RELIABILITY; SELF CONCEPT; STAFF TRAINING; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; TAIWAN; VALIDITY; VARIANCE;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; COMPUTERS, HANDHELD; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; HEALTH CARE SECTOR; MODELS, ORGANIZATIONAL; POINT-OF-CARE SYSTEMS; TAIWAN; TELEMEDICINE;

EID: 33845414612     PISSN: 13865056     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.06.006     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Chan A.T.S. WWW + smart card: towards a mobile healthcare management system. Int. J. Med. Inform. 57 (2000) 127-137
2. Hikmet N., and Chen S.K. An investigation into low mail survey response rates of information technology users in health care organizations. Int. J. Med. Inform. 72 (2003) 29-34
3. M. Linhoff, Mobile computing in medical and healthcare industry (http://www.mocomed.com/workshop2002/beitraege/Linhoff.pdf, last accessed March 24, 2006).
4. Duplaga M., Leszczuk M., and Zielinski K. Improving access of associated states to advanced concepts in medical telematics-a day before the accession to EU. Int. J. Med. Inf. 75 (2006) 300-305
5. Ammenwerth E., Gräber S., Herrmann G., Bürkle T., and König J. Evaluation of health information systems-problems and challenges. Int. J. Med. Inf. 71 (2003) 125-135
6. C. Finch, Mobile computing in healthcare (http://www.healthmgttech.com/archives/view0499.html, last accessed December 1, 2005).
7. Haux R. Health information systems-past, present, future. Int. J. Med. Inf. 75 (2006) 268-281
8. J. Geier, Saving lives with roving LANs. Network World, February 5, 2001 (http://wireless.itworld.com/4246/NWW0205bgside/pfindex.html, last accessed March 24, 2006).
9. Jan ten Duis H., and van der Werken C. Trauma care systems in The Netherlands. Injury 34 9 (2003) 722-727
10. Jelekäinen P. GSM-PKI solution enabling secure mobile communications. Int. J. Med. Inform. 73 (2004) 317-320
11. Johnson C.M., and Turley J.P. The significance of cognitive modeling in building healthcare interfaces. Int. J. Med. Inform. 75 (2006) 163-172
12. Reuss E., Menozzi M., Büchi M., Koller J., and Krueger H. Information access at the point of care: what can we learn for designing a mobile CPR system?. Int J. Med. Inform. 73 (2004) 363-369
13. Bång M., Larsson A., Berglund E., and Eriksson H. Distributed user interfaces for clinical ubiquitous computing applications. Int. J. Med. Inform. 74 7-8 (2005) 545-551
14. Choi J., Chun J., Lee K., Lee S., Shin D., Hyun S., Kim D., and Kim D. MobileNurse: hand-held information system for point of nursing care. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 74 3 (2004) 245-254
15. Lu Y.C., Xiao Y., Sears A., and Jacko J.A. A review and a framework of handheld computer adoption in healthcare. Int. J. Med. Inform. 74 5 (2005) 409-422
16. Berg M. Patient care information systems and health care work: a sociotechnical approach. Int. J. Med. Inform. 55 (1999) 87-101
17. Short D., Frischer M., and Bashford J. Barriers to the adoption of computerized decision support systems in general practice consultations: a qualitative study of GPs' perspectives. Int. J. Med. Inform. 73 (2004) 357-362
18. Johnson J.D., Meyer M., Woodworth M., Ethington C., and Stengle W. Information technologies within the cancer information service: factors related to innovation adoption. Prev. Med. 27 5 (1998) S71-S83
19. Rigby M. Essential prerequisites to the safe and effective widespread roll-out of e-working in healthcare. Int. J. Med. Inform. 75 (2006) 138-147
20. Chau P.Y.K., and Hu P.J.H. Investigating healthcare professionals' decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Inform. Manag. 39 4 (2002) 297-311
21. Gagnon M.P., Godin G., Gagne C., Fortin J.P., Lamothe L., Reinharz D., and Cloutier A. An adaptation of the theory of interpersonal behaviour to the study of telemedicine adoption by physicians. Int. J. Med. Inform. 71 (2003) 103-115
22. Hameed K. The application of mobile computing and technology to health care services. Telemat. Inform. 20 (2003) 99-106
23. Gebauer J., and Shaw M.J. Success factors and impacts of mobile business applications: results from a mobile e-procurement study. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 8 3 (2004) 19-41
24. Stefanelli M. The role of methodologies to improve efficiency and effectiveness of care delivery processes for the year. Int. J. Med. Inf. 66 (2002) 39-44
25. Horan T.A., Tulu B., Hilton B., and Burton J. Use of online systems in clinical medical assessments: an analysis of physician acceptance of online disability evaluation systems. Proceeding of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii (2004)
26. Wu J.H., and Wang S.C. What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Inform. Manag. 42 5 (2005) 719-729
27. Fitch C.J. Information systems in healthcare: mind the gap. Proceeding of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii (2004)
28. Lee Y.E., and Benbasat I. A framework for the study of customer interface design for mobile commerce. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 8 3 (2004) 79-102
29. Davis F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13 3 (1989) 319-339
30. Davis F.D., Bagozzi R.P., and Warshaw P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage. Sci. 35 8 (1989) 982-1003
31. Venkatesh V., and Davis F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46 2 (2000) 186-204
32. Calisir F., and Calisir F. The relation of interface usability characteristics, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use to end-user satisfaction with enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Comput. Hum. Behav. 20 4 (2004) 505-515
33. Plouffe C.R., Hulland J.S., and Vandenbosch M. Research report: richness versus parsimony in modeling technology adoption decision-understanding merchant adoption of a smart card-based payment system. Inform. Syst. Res. 12 2 (2001) 208-222
34. Rogers E.M. The Diffusion of Innovation. third ed. (1983), Free Press, New York
35. Rogers E.M. The Diffusion of Innovation. fifth ed. (2003), Free Press, New York
36. Van Slyke C., Lou H., and Day J. The impact of perceived innovation characteristics on intention to use groupware. Inform. Resour. Manag. J. 15 1 (2002) 5-12
37. Hardgrave B.C., Davis F.D., and Riemenschneider C.K. Investigating determinants of software developers' intentions to follow methodologies. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 20 1 (2003) 123-152
38. Lee C.H.M., and Cheng Y.W. Comparing smart card adoption in Singapore and Australian universities. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 58 (2003) 307-325
39. Chau P.Y.K., and Hu P.J.H. Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach. Decis. Sci. 32 4 (2001) 699-719
40. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychologist 37 (1977) 122-147
41. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 37 (1982) 122-147
42. Torkzadeh G., and Van Dyke T.P. Effects of training on Internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 18 5 (2002) 479-494
43. Barbeite F.G., and Weiss E.M. Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an Internet sample: testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Comput. Hum. Behav. 20 1 (2004) 1-15
44. Bedard J.C., Jackson C., Ettredge M.L., and Johnstone K.M. The effect of training on auditors' acceptance of an electronic work system. Int. J. Account. Inform. Syst. 4 (2003) 227-250
45. Compeau D.R., and Higgins C.A. Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q. 19 2 (1995) 189-211
46. Igbaria M., and Iivari J. The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega 23 6 (1995) 587-605
47. J.H. Wu, Y.C. Chen, L.M. Lin, Empirical evaluation of the revised end user computing acceptance model, Comput. Hum. Behav. (2006) in press.
48. Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inform. Syst. Res. 11 4 (2000) 342-365
49. Wang Y.S. The adoption of electronic tax filing systems: an empirical study. Gov. Inf. Q. 20 (2002) 333-352
50. Igbaria M., Zinatelli N., Cragg P., and Cavaye A. Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model. MIS Q. 21 3 (1997) 279-302
51. Hasan B. The influence of specific computer experiences on computer self-efficacy beliefs. Comput. Hum. Behav. 19 4 (2003) 443-450
52. Venkatesh V., Morris M.G., Davis G.B., and Davis F.D. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27 3 (2003) 425-478
53. Byrne B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming (2006), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
54. Jöreskog K.G., and Sörbom D. LISREL 8 Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS™ Command Language (1993), Scientific Software Int., Chicago, IL
55. Kelloway E.K. Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher's Guide (1998), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
56. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E., and Tatham R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis. sixth ed. (2005), Prentice Hall, NJ
57. Bagozzi R.P., and Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 16 1 (1988) 74-94
58. Scarborough N.M., and Zimmerer T.W. Effective Small Business Management. sixth ed. (2000), Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
59. Jöreskog K.G., and Sörbom D. Recent developments in structural equation modeling. J. Mark. Res. 19 4 (1982) 404-416
60. Bentler P.M., and Bonett D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 88 (1980) 588-606
61. Tucker L.R., and Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38 (1973) 1-10
62. Bentler P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107 (1990) 238-246
63. Browne M.W., and Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen K.A., and Long J.S. (Eds). Testing Structural Equation Models (1993), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 136-162