Social networks and physician adoption of electronic health records: Insights from an empirical study

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 328-336

  Zheng, Kai ^a   Padman, Rema ^b   Krackhardt, David ^b,c   Johnson, Michael P ^d   Diamond, Herbert S ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

^e WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMBULATORY CARE; ARTICLE; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EMPIRICISM; FRIENDSHIP; HUMAN; INTIMACY; PATIENT CARE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; RESIDENT; SOCIAL INTERACTION; SOCIAL NETWORK; CLINICAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HOSPITAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL STAFF; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PUBLIC RELATIONS; SOCIAL SUPPORT; SOCIOMETRIC STATUS; TECHNOLOGY; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

AMBULATORY CARE INFORMATION SYSTEMS; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; INTERNSHIP AND RESIDENCY; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; MEDICAL STAFF, HOSPITAL; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; SOCIAL SUPPORT; SOCIOMETRIC TECHNIQUES; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77955287811     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jamia.2009.000877     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Erickson BH. The relational basis of attitudes. In: Wellman B, Berkowitz SD, eds. Social structures: a network approach. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988:99-121.
2. Coleman J, Katz E, Menzel H. Medical innovation: a diffusion study. 2nd edn. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.
3. Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applicationsd-some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. Int J Med Inf 2001;64:39-56.
4. Delpierre C, Cuzin L, Fillaux J, et al. A systematic review of computer-based patient record systems and quality of care: more randomized clinical trials or a broader approach? Int J Qual Health Care 2004;16:407-16.
5. Goddard BL. Termination of a contract to implement an enterprise electronic medical record system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000;7:564-8.
6. Kazley AS, Ozcan YA. Do hospitals with electronic medical records (EMRs) provide higher quality care? An examination of three clinical conditions. Med Care Res Rev 2008;65:496-513.
7. Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST, et al. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 2005;116:1506-12.
8. Agarwal R, Prasad J. The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sci 1997;28:557-82.
9. Venkatesh V, Morris MG. Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quart 2000;24:115-39.
10. Morris MG, Venkatesh V. Age differences in technology adoption decisions: implications for a changing work force. Pers Psychol 2000;53:375-403.
11. Straub D, Keil M, Brenner W. Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: a three country study. Inf Manage 1997;33:1-11.
12. Edwards N, Kornacki MJ, Silversin J. Unhappy doctors: what are the causes and what can be done? BMJ 2002;324:835-8.
13. Barki H, Hartwick J. Measuring user participation, use involvement, and user attitude. MIS Quart 1994;18:59-82.
14. Mead GH. Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1934.
15. Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism, perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1969.
16. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart 1989;13:319-40.
17. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Beliefs, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
18. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J, eds. Springer series in social psychology. Berlin: Springer, 1985:11-39.
19. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart 2003;27:425-78.
20. Merton RK, Rossi AS. Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior. In: Merton RK, ed. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press, 1950:279-334.
21. Homans GC. The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1950.
22. Burt RS. Cohesion versus structural equivalence as a basis for network subgroups. Sociol Methods Res 1978;7:189-212.
23. Burt RS. Social contagion and innovation: cohesion versus structural equivalence. Am J Sociol 1987;92:1287-35.
24. Anderson JG, Jay SJ. Computers and clinical judgment: the role of physician networks. Soc Sci Med 1985;20:969-79.
25. Rice RE, Aydin C. Attitudes toward new organizational technology: network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Adm Sci Q 1991;36:219-44.
26. Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med 2007;357:370-9.
27. Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2249-58.
28. Fowler JH, Christakis NA. Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. BMJ 2008;337: a2338.
29. Scott J, Tallia A, Crosson JC, et al. Social network analysis as an analytic tool for interaction patterns in primary care practices. Ann Fam Med 2005;3:443-8.
30. Keating NL, Ayanian JZ, Cleary PD, et al. Factors affecting influential discussions among physicians: a social network analysis of a primary care practice. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:794-8.
31. Westbrook JI, Braithwaite J, Georgiou A, et al. Multimethod evaluation of information and communication technologies in health in the context of wicked problems and sociotechnical theory. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:746-55.
32. Merrill J, Hripcsak G. Using social network analysis within a department of biomedical informatics to induce a discussion of academic communities of practice. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008;15:780-2.
33. Gibbons DE. Friendship and advice networks in the context of changing professional values. Adm Sci Q 2004;49:238-62.
34. Zheng K, Padman R, Johnson MP, et al. An adoption study of a clinical reminder system in ambulatory care using a developmental trajectory approach. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004;107:1115-19.
35. Zheng K, Padman R, Johnson MP, et al. An interface-driven analysis of user interactions with an electronic health records system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009;16:228-37.
36. Cork RD, Detmer WM, Friedman CP. Development and initial validation of an instrument to measure physicians' use of, knowledge about, and attitudes toward computers. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998;5:164-76.
37. Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
38. Freeman LC. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 1977;40:35-41.
39. Breiger R, Boorman S, Arabie P. An algorithm for clustering relational data with applications to social network analysis and comparison with multidimensional scaling. J Math Psychol 1975;12:328-83.
40. Krackhardt D. Predicting with networks: noparametric multiple regression analysis of dyadic data. Soc Networks 1988;10:359-81.
41. Doreian P. Linear models with spatially distributed data. Sociol Methods Res 1980;9:29-60.
42. Leenders RTAJ. Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: constructing the weight matrix. Soc Networks 2002;24:21-47.
43. Bonacich P. Factoring and weighting approaches to clique identification. J Math Sociol 1972;2:113-20.
44. Robinson MD, Clore GL. Belief and feeling: evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychol Bull 2002;128:934-60.
45. Bradburn NM, Rips LJ, Shevell SK. Answering autobiographical questions: the impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science 1987;236:157-61.
46. Merton RK. The unanticipated consequences of purposive action. Am Sociol Rev 1936;1:894-904.
47. Berman EM, West JP, Richter MN. Workplace relations: friendship patterns and consequences (according to managers). Public Admin Rev 2002;62:217-30.
48. Shah PP. Network destruction: the structural implications of downsizing. Acad Manage J 2000;43:101-12.
49. Burkhardt ME. Social interaction effects following a technological change: a longitudinal investigation. Acad Manage J 1994;37:868-96.
50. Bass BM. Bass and Stodgill's handbook of leadership. 3rd edn. New York: Free Press, 1990.
51. Boyd NG, Taylor RR. A developmental approach to the examination of friendship in leader-follower relationships. Leadership Quart 1998;9:1-25.
52. Gifford DR, Holloway RG, Frankel MR, et al. Improving adherence to dementia guidelines through education and opinion leaders. a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:237-46.
53. Valente TW. Opinion leader interventions in social networks. BMJ 2006;333:1082-3.
54. Ash JS, Stavri PZ, Dykstra R, et al. Implementing computerized physician order entry: the importance of special people. Int J Med Inf 2003;69:235-50.
55. Halbesleben JR, Wakefield DS, Ward MM, et al. The relationship between super users' attitudes and employee experiences with clinical information systems. Med Care Res Rev 2009;66:82-96.
56. Locock L, Dopson S, Chambers D, et al. Understanding the role of opinion leaders in improving clinical effectiveness. Soc Sci Med 2001;53:745-57.
57. Gaither CA, Bagozzi RP, Ascione FJ, et al. A reasoned action approach to physicians' utilization of drug information sources. Pharm Res 1996;13:1291-8.
58. Succi MJ, Walter ZD. Theory of user acceptance of information technologies: An examination of health care professionals. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference, 1999. Washington DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society, 1999.
59. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Mgmt Sci 2000;46:186-204.
60. Chau PYK, Hu PJH. Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach. Decision Sci 2001;32:699-719.
61. Chismar WG, Wiley-Patton S. Test of the technology acceptance model for the internet in pediatrics. Proc AMIA Symp 2002;155-9.
62. Gagnon MP, Godin G, Gagné C, et al. An adaptation of the theory of interpersonal behaviour to the study of telemedicine adoption by physicians. Int J Med Inf 2003;71:103-15.
63. Wu JH, Shen WS, Lin LM, et al. Testing the technology acceptance model for evaluating healthcare professionals' intention to use an adverse event reporting system. Int J Qual Health Care 2008;20:123-9.
64. Kuo D, Gifford DR, Stein MD. Curbside consultation practices and attitudes among primary care physicians and medical subspecialists. JAMA 1998;280:905-9.
65. Beatty PC, Beatty SF. Anaesthetists'intentions to violate safety guidelines. Anaesthesia 2004;59:528-40.
66. Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, Wood M. Getting evidence into clinical practice: an organisational behaviour perspective. J Health Serv Res Policy 2000;5:96-102.
67. Zheng K, Padman R, Johnson MP, et al. Evaluation of healthcare IT applications: the user acceptance perspective. In: Vaidya S, Jain LC, Yoshida H, eds. Advanced computational intelligence paradigms in healthcare. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2007;2:49-78.