The preferences of users of electronic medical records in hospitals: Quantifying the relative importance of barriers and facilitators of an innovation

Implementation Science

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Struik, Marjolijn H L ^a   Koster, Ferry ^b   Schuit, A J ^a,c   Nugteren, Rutger ^c   Veldwijk, Jorien ^c,d   Lambooij, Mattijs S ^c  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Adopter preferences; Barriers and facilitators; Clinicians; Discrete choice experiment; Electronic Medical Record; Implementation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEMALE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HOSPITAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; HOSPITAL PERSONNEL; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NURSE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PHYSICIAN; PSYCHOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY; UTILIZATION;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEMALE; HOSPITAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NURSES; PERSONNEL, HOSPITAL; PHYSICIANS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

EID: 84904067596     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17485908     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-69     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Bramble JD, Galt KA, Siracuse MV, Abbott AA, Drincic A, Paschal KA, Fuji KT. The relationship between physician practice characteristics and physician adoption of electronic health records. Health Care Manage Rev 2010, 35:55-64.
2. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations 1995, New York: Simon and Schuster, 4.
3. Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CHI. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci 2013, 8:22.
4. Fleuren M, Wiefferink K, Paulussen T. Determinants of innovation within health care organizations: literature review and Delphi study. Int J Qual Health Care 2004, 16:107-123.
5. Grol R, Grimshaw J. Research into practice I From best evidence to best practice : effective implementation of change in patients care. Lancet 2003, 362:1225-1230.
6. Grol R, Wensing M. What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust 2004, 180:S57-S60.
7. Grol R, Wensing M. Implementatie, effectieve verbetering van de patiëntenzorg 2011, Amsterdam: Reed Business.
8. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 1989, 35:982-1003.
9. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2010, 21:145-172.
10. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26:661-677.
11. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000, 320:1530-1533.
12. Farley K, Thompson C, Hanbury A, Chambers D. Exploring the feasibility of Conjoint Analysis as a tool for prioritizing innovations for implementation. Implementation Science 2013, 8:56.
13. van Helvoort-Postulart D, van Der Weijden T, Dellaert BGC, de Kok M, vM MF, Dirksen CD. Investigating the complementary value of discrete choice experiments for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research: a questionnaire survey. Implementation Science 2009, 4:10.
14. Goldstein DH, Phelan R, Wilson R, Ross-White A, Vandenkerkhof EG, Penning JP, Jaeger M. Brief review: Adoption of electronic medical records to enhance acute pain management. Can J Anaesth 2013, 61(2):164-179.
15. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, Morton SC, Shekelle PG. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 2006, 144:E-12-E-22.
16. Nambisan P, Kreps GL, Polit S. Understanding electronic medical record adoption in the United States: communication and sociocultural perspectives. Interact J Med Res 2013, 2:e5.
17. Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, Girosi F, Meili R, Scoville R, Taylor R. Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005, 24:1103-1117.
18. Boonstra A, Broekhuis M. Barriers to the acceptance of electronic medical records by physicians from systematic review to taxonomy and interventions. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 10:231.
19. Bridges JFP, Hauber A, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser L, Regier D, Johnson FR, Mauskopf J. Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health 2011, 14:403-413.
20. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. e Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources 2008, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, Bateman IJ, Dordrecht: Springer.
21. Manski CF. The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis 1977, 8:229-254.
22. Bliemer MCJ, Rose JM. Efficiency and Sample Size Requirements for Stated Choice Experiments. Transportation Research Board 88th Annual Meeting; 2009 2009,
23. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 2003, 27:425-478.
24. Davis FD. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. 1986, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Thesis.
25. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 1989, 13:319-340.
26. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci 2000, 46:186-204.
27. McGinn CA, Grenier S, Duplantie J, Shaw N, Sicotte C, Mathieu L, Leduc Y, Legare F, Gagnon MP. Comparison of user groups' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review. BMC Med 2011, 9:46.
28. Rao AS, Adam TJ, Gensinger R, Westra BL. Study of the factors that promoted the implementation of electronic medical record on iPads at two emergency departments. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2012, 2012:744-752.
29. Sclafani J, Tirrell TF, Franko OI. Mobile tablet use among academic physicians and trainees. J Med Syst 2013, 37:9903.
30. Darbyshire P. 'Rage against the machine?': nurses' and midwives' experiences of using computerized patient information systems for clinical information. J Clin Nurs 2004, 13:17-25.
31. Roshanov PS, Misra S, Gerstein HC, Garg AX, Sebaldt RJ, Mackay J, Weise-Kelly L, Navarro T, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Computerized clinical decision support systems for chronic disease management: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. Implement ScienceS 2011, 6:92.
32. Roshanov PS, You JJ, Dhaliwal J, Koff D, Mackay J, Weise-Kelly L, Navarro T, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Can computerized clinical decision support systems improve practitioners' diagnostic test ordering behavior? A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. Implementation Sci 2011, 6:88.
33. Ludwick D, Manca D, Doucette J. Primary care physicians' experiences with electronic medical records Implementation experience in community, urban, hospital, and academic family medicine. Can Fam Physician 2010, 56:40-47.
34. Sassen EJ. Love, hate, or indifference: how nurses really feel about the electronic health record system. Comput Inform Nurs 2009, 27:281-287.
35. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82:581-629.
36. Jones RA, Jimmieson NL, Griffiths A. The impact of organizational culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: the mediating role of readiness for change. J Manage Stud 2005, 42(2):361-386.
37. Birken SA, Lee S-YD, Weiner BJ. Uncovering middle managers' role in healthcare innovation implementation. Implement Science 2012, 7:28.
38. van der Veer S. Systematic quality improvement in healthcare: clinical performance measurement and registry-based feedback 2012, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Medicine.
39. Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Info Syst Res 2000, 11:342-365.
40. Sapyta J, Riemer M, Bickman L. Feedback to clinicians: theory, research, and practice. J Clin Psychol 2005, 61:145-153.
41. CBS StatLine- Medically qualified, employment status, position in employment, by occupation. Book StatLine- Medically qualified, employment status, position in employment, by occupation 2013, Den Haag: Statistics Netherlands (CBS), [http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=81551NED&D1=0,2,9,14,19-20&D2=1-2&D3=1-10&D4=4,65&D5=l&HDR=T&STB=G3,G1,G4,G2&VW=T], CBS.
42. Ludwick D, Doucette J. Adopting electronic medical records in primary care: lessons learned from health information systems implementation experience in seven countries. Int J Med Info 2009, 78:22-31.
43. IGZ (Health Care Inspectorate) State of Health care 2011, Information exchange in health care: IT does not solve problems without standardization of information exchange. Book State of Health care 2011, Information exchange in health care: IT does not solve problems without standardization of information exchange 2011, Utrecht: IGZ, Health Care Inspectorate, IGZ (Health Care Inspectorate).
44. Gill PS, Kamath A, Gill TS. Distraction: an assessment of smartphone usage in health care work settings. Risk Manage Healthcare Policy 2012, 5:105-114.
45. Pirnejad H, Niazkhani Z, van der Sijs H, Berg M, Bal R. Evaluation of the impact of a CPOE System on Nurse-physician communication. Meth Info Med 2009, 48:350-360.
46. Chang L, Krosnick J. National Surveys Via Rdd Telephone Interviewing Versus the Internet: Comparing Sample Representativeness and Response Quality. Public Opin Q 2009, 73:641-678.
47. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Carson RT. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model 2010, 3:57-72.