A comparison of physician pre-adoption and adoption views on electronic health records in canadian medical practices

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2011, Pages

  Archer, Norm ^a   Cocosila, Mihail ^b  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b ATHABASCA UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canada; Electronic health record; Information technology; Medical practice

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; CANADA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; MANAGEMENT; MASS COMMUNICATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PHYSICIAN; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICS; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; CANADA; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; HEALTH PLAN IMPLEMENTATION; HUMANS; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; PHYSICIANS; PRACTICE MANAGEMENT, MEDICAL; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 80053537917     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14388871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1726     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Davis K, Doty MM, Shea K, Stremikis K. Health information technology and physician perceptions of quality of care and satisfaction. Health Policy 2009 May;90(2-3):239-246. [doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.10.002] [Medline: 19038472]
2. Wright A, McGlinchey EA, Poon EG, Jenter CA, Bates DW, Simon SR. Ability to generate patient registries among practices with and without electronic health records. J Med Internet Res 2009;11(3):e31 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.1166] [Medline: 19674961]
3. Ross SE, Todd J, Moore LA, Beaty BL, Wittevrongel L, Lin CT. Expectations of patients and physicians regarding patient-accessible medical records. J Med Internet Res 2005;7(2):e13 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.2.e13] [Medline: 15914460]
4. Kazemi A, Fors UG, Tofighi S, Tessma MK, Ellenius J. Physician order entry or nurse order entry? Comparison of two implementation strategies for a computerized order entry system aimed at reducing dosing medication errors. J Med Internet Res 2010;12(1):e5 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.1284] [Medline: 20185400]
5. Gunter TD, Terry NP. The emergence of national electronic health record architectures in the United States and Australia: models, costs, and questions. J Med Internet Res 2005;7(1):e3 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.1.e3] [Medline: 15829475]
6. Venkatesh V, Speier C, Morris MG. User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: toward an integrated model. Decis Sci 2002;33(2):297-316.
7. Jensen TB, Aanestad M. Hospitality and hostility in hospitals: a case study of an EPR adoption among surgeons. Eur J Inf Syst 2007;16:672-680. [doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000713]
8. Klein R. An empirical examination of patient-physician portal acceptance. Eur J Inf Syst 2007;16:751-760. [doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000719]
9. Koru G, El Emam K, Neisa A, Umarji M. A survey of quality assurance practices in biomedical open source software projects. J Med Internet Res 2007;9(2):e8 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.9.2.e8] [Medline: 17513286] (Pubitemid 47454487)
10. Leonard KJ, Sittig DF. Improving information technology adoption and implementation through the identification of appropriate benefits: creating IMPROVE-IT. J Med Internet Res 2007;9(2):e9 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.9.2.e9] [Medline: 17513287] (Pubitemid 47450398)
11. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 2003;27(3):425-478.
12. Davis F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 1989;13(3):319-340.
13. Venkatesh V, Davis F. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 2000;46(2):186-204. [doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926] (Pubitemid 30594361)
14. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.
15. Yi MY, Jackson JD, Park JS, Probst JC. Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: toward an integrative view. Inform Manag 2006;43:350-363. [doi: 10.1016/j.im.2005.08.006] (Pubitemid 43333006)
16. DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Rao SR, Donelan K, Ferris TG, Jha A, et al. Electronic health records in ambulatory care: a national survey of physicians. N Engl J Med 2008 Jul 3;359(1):50-60 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1056/ NEJMsa0802005] [Medline: 18565855] (Pubitemid 351931096)
17. 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. [doi: 10.1287/isre.2.3.192]
18. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 1989;35(8):982-1002. [doi: 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982]
19. Cocosila M, Archer N, Yuan Y. Early investigation of new information technology acceptance: a perceived risk-motivation model. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 2009;25(30) [FREE Full text] [WebCite Cache]
20. Lapointe L, Rivard S. Getting physicians to accept new information technology: insights from case studies. CMAJ 2006 May 23;174(11):1573-1578 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050281] [Medline: 16717265] (Pubitemid 43829512)
21. Featherman MS, Pavlou P. Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. Int J Hum Comput Stud 2003;59(4):451-474. [doi: 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00111-3]
22. Wu JH, Wang SC. What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Inf Manag 2005;42(5):719-729. [doi: 10.1016/j.im.2004.07.001] (Pubitemid 40655116)
23. Lim N. Consumers' perceived risk: Sources versus consequences. Electron Commer Res Appl 2003;2:216-228.
24. Laroche M, McDougall G, Bergeron J, Yang Z. Exploring how intangibility affects perceived risk. J Serv Res 2004;6(4):373-389.
25. Bontis N, Crossan MM, Hulland J. Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. J Manag Stud 2002;39(4):437-469. [doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00299]
26. Jöreskog KG, Wold H. The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent variables. In: Jöreskog KG, Wold H, editors. Systems Under Indirect Observation. Volume 139. New York, NY: North-Holland Publishing Company; 1982:263-270.
27. Chin WW, Newsted PRHoyle RH. Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In: Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999:307-337.
28. Gefen D, Straub D. A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: tutorial and annotated example. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 2005;16:91-109.
29. Ahuja MK, , Thatcher, JB. Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of trying: effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use. MIS Q 2005;29(3):427-459. (Pubitemid 46063137)
30. Chin WW.University of Houston, CT Bauer College of Business. 2004. Frequently Asked Questions: Partial Least Squares & PLS-Graph URL: http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/plsfaq/plsfaq.htm [accessed 2010-11-27] [WebCite Cache ID 5uZMSOxrz]
31. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York, NY: J Wiley & Sons; 1987.
32. Bontis N. National intellectual capital index: a United Nations initiative for the Arab region. J Intellect Capital 2004;5(1):13-39. [doi: 10.1108/14691930410512905] (Pubitemid 38170735)
33. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res 1981;18(1):39-50.
34. Jarvenpaa SL, Shaw TR, Sandy DS. Toward contextualized theories of trust: the role of trust in global virtual teams. Inf Syst Res 2004 Sep;15(3):250-267. [doi: 10.1287/isre.1040.0028] (Pubitemid 39539157)
35. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition. New York, NY: Free Press; 2003.
36. Bontis N, Keow W, Richardson S. Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries. J Intellect Capital 2000;1(1):85-100. [doi: 10.1108/14691930010324188] (Pubitemid 33239258)
37. Chin WW.The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides A, editor. Modern Methods for Business Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1998:295-336.