Electronic health record acceptance by physicians: Testing an integrated theoretical model

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Volumn 48, Issue , 2014, Pages 17-27

  Gagnon, Marie Pierre ^a,b   Ghandour, El Kebir ^a   Talla, Pascaline Kengne ^a   Simonyan, David ^a   Godin, Gaston ^b   Labrecque, Michel ^a   Ouimet, Mathieu ^a,b   Rousseau, Michel ^c  

^a Université Laval   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À TROIS RIVIÈRES   (Canada)

Author keywords

Acceptance; Electronic health record; Physicians; TAM; Theoretical model

Indexed keywords

LINEAR REGRESSION; RECORDS MANAGEMENT; SURVEYS; HEALTH; HEALTH RISKS; INVARIANCE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ACCEPTANCE; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; PHYSICIANS; TAM; THEORETICAL MODELING;

ACCEPTANCE TESTS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANADA; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EXTENDED TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTEGRATED MODEL; MALE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NORMAL HUMAN; PATH ANALYSIS; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOSOCIAL MODEL; QUESTIONNAIRE; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL; THEORETICAL MODEL; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; MASS COMMUNICATION; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIAN; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; AGE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; GENDER; INFORMATION MODEL; MODEL; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; SOCIAL NORM; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; DECISION MAKING; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PHYSICIANS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUEBEC; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEX FACTORS; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL;

EID: 84899483461     PISSN: 15320464     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.10.010     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. Alvarez R. The electronic health record: a leap forward in patient safety. Healthc Papers 2004, 5:33-36.
2. Romanow R. Building on values: the future of health care in Canada - final report 2002, Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada.
3. Committee on Identifying Priority Areas for Quality Improvement. Priority areas for national action: transforming health care quality. In: Adams K, Corrigan JM. editors. The National Academies Press; 2003.
4. Blumenthal D. Launching HITECH. N Engl J Med 2010, 362(5):382-385.
5. Buntin M.B., et al. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff 2011, 30(3):464-471.
6. Hollingworth W., et al. The impact of e-prescribing on prescriber and staff time in ambulatory care clinics: a time-motion study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007, 14(6):722-730.
7. Holroyd-Leduc J.M., et al. The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011.
8. Samaan Z.M.K., Melissa D., Mansour Mona E., DeWitt Thomas G. The impact of the electronic health record on an academic pediatric primary care center. J Ambulatory Care Manage 2009, 32(3):180-187.
9. Shachak A., et al. Primary care physicians' use of an electronic medical record system: a cognitive task analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2009, 24(3):341-348.
10. Shekelle P, Morton S, Keeler E. Costs and benefits of health information technology. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 132. (Prepared by the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center under, Contract No. 290-02-0003.); 2006.
11. Simon S., et al. Correlates of electronic health record adoption in office practices: a statewide survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007, 14:110-117.
12. Staroselsky M., et al. Improving electronic health record (EHR) accuracy and increasing compliance with health maintenance clinical guidelines through patient access and input. Int J Med Inform 2006, 75:693-700.
13. Canada Health Infoway. Accelerating the electronic health record in Canada. In: C.H.I.H.C.o.C. (CHIHCC), editor. beyond good intentions: accelerating the electronic health record in Canada. Montebello QC; 2006.
14. Greenhalgh T., et al. Why national eHealth programs need dead philosophers: Wittgensteinian reflections on policymakers' reluctance to learn from history. Milbank Q 2011, 89(4):533-563.
15. Ueckert F., et al. Empowerment of patients and communication with health care professionals through an electronic health record. Int J Med Inform 2003, 70:99-108.
16. Urowitz S., et al. Is Canada ready for patient accessible electronic health records? A national scan. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008, 8:33.
17. De Leon S.F., Shih S.C. Tracking the delivery of prevention-oriented care among primary care providers who have adopted electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011, 18(Suppl. 1). i91-5.
18. Labkoff S., Yasnoff W. A framework for systematic evaluation of health information infrastructure progress in communities. J Biomed Inform 2007, 40:100-105.
19. Canada Health Infoway. Interoperable EHR; 2012. [cited 16.12.12]. https://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/index.php/programs-services/investment-programs/interoperable-ehr.
20. Institute of Medicine. In: Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the twenty-first century. Washington: Institute of Medicine; 2001.
21. Blumenthal D. Stimulating the adoption of health information technology. N Engl J Med 2009, 360(15):1477-1479.
22. Simon S, et al., Correlates of electronic health record adoption in office practices: a statewide survey. In: AMIA Annu Symp Proc; 2006. p. 1098.
23. Hendy J., et al. Implementing the NHS information technology programme: qualitative study of progress in acute trusts. BMJ 2007, 334:1360.
24. Hendy J., et al. Challenges to implementing the national programme for information technology (NPfIT): a qualitative study. BMJ 2005, 331:331-336.
25. Pagliari C. Implementing the National Programme for IT: what can we learn from the Scottish experience?. Inform Prim Care 2005, 13:105-111.
26. Currie W., Guah M. Conflicting institutional logics: a national programme for IT in the organisational field of healthcare. J Inf Technol 2007, 22:235-247.
27. Greenhalgh T, et al. The devil's in the detail: final report of the independent evaluation of the summary care record and healthspace programmes. London; 2010.
28. Rich P. Getting IT Right. MD pulse 2008 the national physician survey - beyond numbers; 2008. p. 31-33.
29. Schoen C., et al. A survey of primary care physicians in eleven countries, 2009: perspectives on care, costs, and experiences. Health Aff 2009, 28(6):w1171-w1183.
30. Silversides A. Canadian physicians playing "catch-up" in adopting electronic medical records. Can Med Assoc J 2010, 182(2):E103-E104.
31. Jha A.K., et al. The use of health information technology in seven nations. Int J Med Informatics 2008, 77(12):848-854.
32. Lapointe L. L'adoption de systemes d'information cliniques par les medecins et les infirmieres: Une etude des variables individuelles, socio-politiques et organisationnelles. In: HEC. Universite de Montreal, Montreal; 1999.
33. Anderson J. Social, ethical and legal barriers to E-health. Int J Med Inform 2007, 76:480-483.
34. Gans D., et al. Medical groups' adoption of electronic health records and information systems. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005, 24:1323-1333.
35. Miller R., Sim I. Physicians' use of electronic medical records: barriers and solutions. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004, 23:116-126.
36. McGinn C., et al. Comparison of user groups' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review. BMC Med 2011, 9(1):46.
37. McGinn C.A., et al. Users' perspectives of key factors to implementing electronic health records in Canada: a Delphi study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012, 12:105.
38. Ludwick D., Manca D., Doucette J. Primary care physicians' experiences with electronic medical records. Can Fam Physician 2010, 56(1):40-47.
39. Nov O., Schecter W. Dispositional resistance to change and hospital physicians' use of electronic medical records: a multidimensional perspective. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 2012, 63(4):648-656.
40. Berner E., Detmer D., Simborg D. Will the wave finally break? A brief view of the adoption of electronic medical records in the United States. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005, 12:3-7.
41. Lorenzi N., et al. Antecedents of the people and organizational aspects of medical informatics: review of the literature. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997, 4:79-93.
42. Burt C., Sisk J. Which physicians and practices are using electronic medical records?. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005, 24:1334-1343.
43. Ford E., Menachemi N., Phillips M. Predicting the adoption of electronic health records by physicians: when will health care be paperless?. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006, 13:106-112.
44. Loomis G., et al. If electronic medical records are so great, why aren't family physicians using them?. J Fam Pract 2002, 51:636-641.
45. Menachemi N. Barriers to ambulatory EHR: who are 'imminent adopters' and how do they differ from other physicians?. Inform Prim Care 2006, 14:101-108.
46. Chang I.C., Hsu H.M. Predicting medical staff intention to use an online reporting system with modified unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Telemed E-Health 2012, 18(1):67-73.
47. Davis F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 1989, 13(3):319-340.
48. Chismar W.G., Wiley-Patton S. Does the extended technology acceptance model apply to physicians. Hawaii international conference on system sciences 2003, IEEE, Hawaii.
49. Holden R.J., Karsh B.T. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform 2010, 43(1):159-172.
50. Melas C.D., et al. Modeling the acceptance of clinical information systems among hospital medical staff: an extended TAM model. J Biomed Inform 2011, 44(4):553-564.
51. Hu P.J., et al. Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. J Manage Inf Syst 1999, 16:91-112.
52. Morton M.E., Wiedenbeck S. A framework for predicting EHR adoption attitudes: a physician survey. Perspect Health Inf Manag 2009, 6:1a.
53. Morton M.E., Wiedenbeck S. EHR acceptance factors in ambulatory care: a survey of physician perceptions. Perspect Health Inf Manag 2010, 7:1c.
54. Yarbrough A.K., Smith T.B. Technology acceptance among physicians: a new take on TAM. Med Care Res Rev 2007, 64:650-674.
55. Ayers D.J., et al. Adoption of electronic medical records: the role of network effects. J Prod Brand Manage 2009, 18(2):127-135.
56. Succi M.J., Walter Z.D. Theory of user acceptance of information technologies: an examination of health care professionals. Hawaii international conference on system sciences 1999, IEEE, Hawaii.
57. *. Decis Sci 2009, 40(2):213-241.
58. Walter Z., Lopez M.S. Physician acceptance of information technologies: role of perceived threat to professional autonomy. Decis Support Syst 2008, 46(1):206-215.
59. Price AP. A study of factors influencing physician adoption of electronic medical records technology. In: Grenoble Ecole de Management; 2010.
60. Holden R.J. Social and personal normative influences on healthcare professionals to use information technology: towards a more robust social ergonomics. Theor Issues Ergonomics Sci 2011, 1-24.
61. Seeman E., Gibson S. Predicting acceptance of electronic medical records: is the technology acceptace model enough?. Adv Manag J 2009, (Autumn):21-28.
62. Archer N., Cocosila M. A comparison of physician pre-adoption and adoption views on electronic health records in Canadian medical practices. J Med Internet Res 2011, 13(3):e57.
63. Venkatesh V., et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 2003, 27(3):425-478.
64. Holden R.J. Physicians' beliefs about using EMR and CPOE: in pursuit of a contextualized understanding of health IT use behavior. Int J Med Inform 2010, 79(2):71-80.
65. Triandis H.C. Values, attitudes and interpersonal behavior. Nebraska symposium on motivation beliefs, attitudes and values 1980, vol. 1:195-259. University of Nebraska Press.
66. Venkatesh V, Sykes TA, Xiaojun Z. Just what the doctor ordered': a revised UTAUT for EMR system adoption and use by doctors. In: 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS); 2011.
67. Chau P.Y.K., Hu P.J. Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: an exploratory study. J Manage Inf Syst 2002, 18(4):191-229.
68. Chau P.Y.K., Hu P.J.H. Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach. Decis Sci 2001, 32(4):699-719.
69. Wu J.H., Wang S.C., Lin L.M. Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: a structural equation model. Int J Med Inform 2007, 76(1):66-77.
70. Agarwal R., Karahanna E. Time flies when you're having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q 2000, 24(4):665-694.
71. King W.R., He J. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manage 2006, 43(6):740-755.
72. Moore G.C., Benbasat I. development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res 1991, 2(3):192-222.
73. Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf Syst Res 2000, 11(4):342-365.
74. Venkatesh V., Davis F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci 2000, 46(2):186-204.
75. Tanriverdi H., Venkatraman N. Creation of professional networks: an emergent model using telemedicine as a case. 32nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences 1999, IEEE Computer Society, Hawaii.
76. Orruno E., et al. Evaluation of teledermatology adoption by health-care professionals using a modified Technology Acceptance Model. J Telemed Telecare 2011, 17(6):303-307.
77. Godin G., et al. Healthcare professionals' intentions and behaviours: a systematic review of studies based on social cognitive theories. Implementation Sci 2008, 3.
78. Gagnon M.P., et al. Using a modified technology acceptance model to evaluate healthcare professionals' adoption of a new telemonitoring system. Telemed E-Health 2012, 18(1):54-59.
79. Gagnon M.-P., Sanchez E., Pons J. From recommendation to action: psychosocial factors influencing physician intention to use Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations. Implementation Sci 2006, 1(1):8.
80. Facione N.C. The Triandis model for the study of health and illness behavior: a social behavior theory with sensitivity to diversity. Adv Nurs Sci 1993, 15(3):49-58.
81. Gagnon M.-P., et al. An adaptation of the theory of interpersonal behaviour to the study of telemedicine adoption by physicians. Int J Med Informatics 2003, 71(2-3):103-115.
82. Bergeron F., et al. Determinants of EIS use: testing a behavioral model. Decis Support Syst 1995, 14(2):131-146.
83. Paré G., Elam J. Discretionary use of personal computers by knowledge workers: testing of a social psychology theoretical model. Behavior Inf Technol 1995, 14(4):215-228.
84. Thompson R.L., Higgins C.A., Howell J.M. Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q 1991, 15(1):125-143.
85. Karahanna E., Agarwal R., Angst C.M. Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance research. Mis Q 2006, 30(4):781-804.
86. Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations 2003, Free Press, New York. 5th ed.
87. Moore G.C., Benbasat I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res 1991, 2(3):192-222.
88. Yi M.Y., et al. Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: toward an integrative view. Inf Manage 2006, 43(3):350-363.
89. Nov O., Ye C. Users' personality and perceived ease of use of digital libraries: the case for resistance to change. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 2008, 59(5):845-851.
90. Compeau D., Higgins C. Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q 1995, 189-211.
91. Lapointe L., Rivard S. Getting physicians to accept new information technology: insights from case studies. CMAJ 2006, 174:1573-1578.
92. Gagnon M.P., et al. Implementation of an electronic medical record in family practice: a case study. Inform Prim Care 2010, 18(1):31-40.
93. Mezni H., Gagnon M., Duplantie J. Etude des determinants individuels de l'adoption du dossier de santé électronique du Québec. Pratiques et Organisation des Soins 2009, 40(2):125-131.
94. Lapointe L., Rivard S. A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Q 2005, 29(3):461-491.
95. Anderson C.J., Gerbing D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 1988, 103(3):411-423.
96. Collège des médecins du Québec. Les statistiques du tableau des membres au 31 décembre 2009. 2009. http://www.cmq.org/fr/Medias/Profil/Commun/Nouvelles/2010/2010-01-26.aspx.
97. Clark L.A., Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess 1995, 7(3):309-319. September.
98. Hooper D., Coughlan J., Mullen M. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Business Res Methods 2008, 6(1):53-60.
99. Tabachnick B., Fidell L. Using multivariate statistics 2007, Allyn and Bacon, New York. 5th ed.
100. Hu L., Bentler P. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 1999, 6(1):1-55.
101. Steiger J.H. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality Individ Differ 2007, 42(5):893-898.
102. Suhr D. Step your way through Path Analysis. In: Western users of SAS software conference proceedings; 2008. p. 1-10.
103. Venkatesh V., Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci 2008, 39(2):273-315.
104. Wu J.-H., 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.
105. Chau P.Y.K., Hu P.J.-H. Investigating healthcare professionals' decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Inf Manage 2002, 39(4):297-311.
106. Zhang J., Walji M. TURF: Towards a unified framework of EHR usability. J Biomed Inform 2011, 44(6):1056-1067.
107. Lowry S., et al. Technical evaluation, testing and validation of the usability of electronic health records. Natl Inst Stand Technol 2012.
108. Rozenblum R., et al. A qualitative study of Canada's experience with the implementation of electronic health information technology. CMAJ 2011, 183(5). E281-8.
109. Lorenzi N., et al. How to successfully select and implement electronic health records (EHR) in small ambulatory practice setting. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2009, 9(1):15.