The acceptance of a computerised decision-support system in primary care: A preliminary investigation

Behaviour and Information Technology

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 321-326

  Van Schaik, Paul ^a   Flynn, Darren ^a   Van Wersch, Anna ^a   Douglass, Andrew ^b   Cann, Paul ^b  

^a TEESSIDE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN ENGINEERING; SURVEYS;

EVALUATION STUDIES; PRIMARY CARE; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODELING;

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 4644279876     PISSN: 0144929X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0144929041000669941     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. BACHMAN, K. H. and FREEBORN, D. K. 1999, HMO physicians' use of referrals. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 547-557.
2. BARKER, D., VAN SCHAIK, P., SIMPSON, D. and CORBETT, W. 2003, Evaluating a spoken dialogue system for recording clinical observations during an endoscopic examination. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine, 28, 85-97.
3. CARSWELL, A. D. and VENKATESH, V. 2002, Learner outcomes in an asynchronous distance educational environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56, 457-494.
4. DAVIS, F. D. 1993, User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475-487.
5. DAVIS, F. D. and VENKATESH, V. 1996. A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 45, 19-45.
6. GRUDIN, J. 1994, Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM, 37, 92-105.
7. HOWELL, D. 1997, Statistical Methods for Psychology (Belmont, CA: Duxbury).
8. Hu, P., CHAU, P., LIU SHENG, O. and TAM, K. 1999, Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance in telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 91-112.
9. MITCHELL, E. and SULLIVAN, F. 2001, A description feast but an evaluative famine: systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980-1997. British Medical Journal, 322, 279-282.
10. NHS EXECUTIVE 1998, Information for Health (Leeds, UK: NHS Executive).
11. SULLIVAN, F. and MITCHELL, E. 1995, Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports. British Medical Journal, 311, 848-852.
12. TABACHNICK, B. G. and FIDELL, L. S. 2001, Using Multivariate Statistics: 4th edition (Boston: Allyn and Bacon).
13. VAN SCHAIK, P. 1999, Involving users in the specification of functionality using scenarios and model-based evaluation. Behaviour and Information Technology, 18, 455-466.
14. VAN SCHAIK, P., BETTANY-SALTIKOV, J. A. and WARREN, J. G. 2002, Clinical acceptance of a low-cost portable system for postural assessment. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21, 47-57.
15. VENKATESH, V. and DAVIS, F. 2000, A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
16. VENKATESH, V. 2000, Determinants of perceived ease of use, integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365.