Theory development in nursing and healthcare informatics: A model explaining and predicting information and communication technology acceptance by healthcare consumers

Advances in Nursing Science

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2007, Pages

  An, Ji Young ^a,b,f   Hayman, Laura L ^c,d   Panniers, Teresa ^e   Carty, Barbara ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

^e GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f NONE

Author keywords

E health; Healthcare consumers; Model; Technology acceptance; The Internet; Theory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; INFORMATION SCIENCE; INFORMATION SERVICE; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; INTERNET; NURSING INFORMATICS; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; TELEMEDICINE; UNITED STATES;

HUMANS; INFORMATICS; INFORMATION SERVICES; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; INTERNET; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; NURSING INFORMATICS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; TELEMEDICINE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34547964863     PISSN: 01619268     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.ANS.0000286628.92386.40     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Gromov GR. History of the Internet and WWW. http://www.netvalley.com/ Intvalold.html. Accessed July 16, 2007.
2. Fox S. Digital divisions. http://www.pewinternet. org/pdfs/ PIP_Digital_Divisions_Oct_5_2005.pdf. Accessed July 11, 2006.
3. Fox S. Health information online. http://www. pewinternet.org/pdfs/ PIP_Healthtopics_May05.pdf. Accessed July 11, 2006.
4. Oh H, Rizo C, Enkin M, Jadad A. What is eHealth (3): A systematic review of published definitions. J Med Internet Res. 2005;(1):el.
5. Pagliari C, Sloan D, Gregor R et al. What is eHealth (4): A scoping exercise to map the field. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(1):e9.
6. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Englesakis M, Rizo C, Stern A. Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interaction. BMJ 2004;328:1-6.
7. Kirsch SED, Lewis FM. Using the World Wide Web in health-related intervention research: a review of controlled trials. CIN Comput Inf Nurs. 2004;22(1):8-18.
8. Baker L, Wagner T, Singer S, Bundorf K. Use of Internet and e-mail for health care informatics: results from a national survey. J Am Med Assoc. 2003;289(18):2400-2406.
9. Gotten SR, Gupta SS. Characteristics of online and offline health information seekers and factors that discriminate between them. Soc Sd Med 2003;59:1795-1806.
10. Chen L, Gillenson ML, Sherrell DL. Enticing online consumers: an extended technology acceptance perspective. Inf Manag. 2002;39:705-719.
11. Moon JW, Kim YG. Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Inf Manag. 2001;38:217-230.
12. Graves JR, Corcoran S. The study of nursing informatics. Image J Nurs Scholarsh. 1989;21(4):227-231.
13. Turley JP. Toward a model for nursing informatics. Image J Nurs Scholarsh. 1996:28(4);309-313.
14. Villarruel AM, Bishop TL, Simpson EM, Jemmott LS, Fawcett J. Borrowed theories, shared theories, and the advancement of nursing knowledge. Nurs Sci Q. 2001;14(2):158-163.
15. Davis FD. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-user Information Systems: Theory and Results [doctoral dissertation]. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1986.
16. Hu PJ, Chau PY. Physician acceptance of telemedicine technology: an empirical investigation. Top Health.Inf Manag. 1999;19(4):20-35.
17. Davis FD, Bagozzi R, Warshaw P. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci. 1989;35(8):982-1003.
18. Hu PJ, Chau PY, Liu Sheng OR, Tarn KY Examiningthe technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. J Manag Inf Syst. 1999;16(2):91-112.
19. Dansky KH, Gamm ID, Vasey JJ, Barsukiewicz CK. Electronic medical records: are physicians ready? J Healthc Manag. 1999;44(6):440-455.
20. Handy J, Hunter I, Whiddett R. User acceptance of inter-organizational electronic medical records. Health Inf J. 2001;7:103-107.
21. Lee FW. Adoption of electronic medical records as a technology innovation for ambulatory care at the medical university of South Carolina. Top Health Inf Manage. 2000;21(1):1-20.
22. Ammenwerth E, Mansmann U, Iller C, Eichstadter R. Factors affecting and affected by user acceptance of computer-based nursing documentation: results of a two-year study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(1):69-84.
23. Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of technology acceptance model. Inf Manag. 2003;40:191-204.
24. An JY Theory development in health care informatics: Information and communication technology acceptance model (ICTAM) improves the explanatory and predictive power of technology acceptance models. In: Park H, Murray P, Delaney C, eds. Consumer-Centered Computer-Supported Care for Healthy People: Vol. 122, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2006:63-67.
25. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319-340.
26. American Nurses Association. Scope and Standards of Nursing Informatics Practice. Washington, DC: American Nurses Association; 2001.
27. Fishbein M, Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Research and Theory. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley; 1985.
28. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci. 2000;46(2):186-204.
29. Subramanian GH. A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement. Decis Sci. 1994;25(5/6): 863-874.
30. Szajna B. Software evaluation and choice: predictive validation of the technology acceptance instrument. MIS Q. 1994;18(3):319-324.
31. Gefen D, Straub D. Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Q. December 1997;21(4):389-400.
32. Venkatesh V, Morris MG. Why do not men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Q. 2000;24(1):115-139.
33. Agarwal R, Prasad J. The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decis Sci. 1997;28(3):557-582.
34. Karahanna F, Straub DW, Chervany NL. Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs, MIS Q 1999;23(2):183-213.
35. Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: system, characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int J Man Mach Stud. 1993;38:475-487.
36. Teo TSH, Lim VKG, Lai RYC. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage. Omega Int J Manag Sci. 1999;27:25-37.
37. Fenech T. Using perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness to predict acceptance of the Worldwide Web. Comput Netw ISDN Syst. 1998;30(1-7):629-630.
38. Lin J, Lu H. Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use a Web site. Int J Inf Manag. 2000;20(3):197-208.
39. Atkinson M, Kydd C. Individual characteristics associated with World-Wide-Web use: an empirical study of playfulness and motivation. DATA BASE Advances Inf Syst. 1997;28(2):53-62.
40. Moore GC, Benbasat I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res. 1991;2(3):192-222.
41. Lee KA. Identification of Influential Factors for Web Site Acceptance Using Extended Technology Accep- tance Model [doctoral dissertation]. Seoul, Korea: Department of Business Administration, University of Foreign Studies; 2002.
42. Kline KB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press; 1998.
43. Davis FD, Bagozzi R, Warshaw R Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1992;22:1111-1132.
44. Yoo B, Donthu N, Lee S. An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. J Acad Mark Sci. 2000;28(2):195-211.
45. Aaker DA. Measuring brand equity across products and markets. Calif Manage Rev. 1995;38(3):102-120.
46. Tornatzky LG, Klein KJ. Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: a metaanalysis of findings. IEEE Trans Eng Manag. 1982;29(1):28-45.
47. Zaltman G, Stiff R. Theory of diffusion. In: Ward S, Robertson TS, eds. Consumer Behavior: Theoretical Sources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1973:416-468.
48. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179-211.
49. Yoo B, Donthu N. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. J Bus Res. 2001;52:1-14.
50. Effken JA. An organizing framework for nursing informatics research. CIN: Comput, Inform, Nurs. 2003;21(6):316-323.
51. Straub DW, Keil M, Brenner W. Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: a three country study. Inf Manag. 1997;33:1-11.