Exploring critical factors influencing physicians' acceptance of mobile electronic medical records based on the dual-factor model: A validation in Taiwan

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Liu, Chung Feng ^a   Cheng, Tain Junn ^a,b,c  

^a CHIA NAN UNIVERSITY OF PHARMACY AND SCIENCE   (Taiwan)

^b CHI MEI MEDICAL CENTER   (Taiwan)

^c NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Dual factor model; Mobile electronic medical records; Perceived mobility; Perceived threat; Physicians

Indexed keywords

DEVICES; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; MOBILE APPLICATION; PHYSICIAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TAIWAN;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HUMANS; MOBILE APPLICATIONS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PHYSICIANS; PSYCHOMETRICS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TAIWAN;

EID: 84924137833     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726947     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12911-014-0125-3     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Lærum H, Ellingsen G, Faxvaag A: Doctors' use of electronic medical records systems in hospitals: cross sectional survey. BMJ 2001, 323:1344-1348.
2. Ludwicke DA, Doucette J: Adopting electronic medical records in primary care: Lessons learned from health information systems implementation experience in seven countries. Int J Med Inform 2009, 78:22-31.
3. Kaplan B: The medical computing "lag": Perceptions of barriers to the application of computers to medicine. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1987, 3:123-136.
4. Paré G, Sicotte C, Jacques H: The effects of creating psychological ownership on physicians'acceptance of clinical information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006, 13:197-205.
5. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 1989, 35:982-1003.
6. Ang J, Pavri F: A survey and critique of the impacts of information technology. Int J Inform Manage 1994, 14:122-133.
7. Timmons S: Nurses resisting information technology. Nurs Inq 2003, 10:257-269.
8. Frideres JS, Goldenberg S, Disanto J, Fleming U: Technophobia: incidence and potential causal factors. Soc Indic Res 1983, 13:381-393.
9. Hu PJ, Chau PYK, Sheng ORL, Tam KY: Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. J Manage Inform Syst 1999, 16:91-112.
10. Kuo KM, Liu CF, Ma CC: An investigation of the effect of nurses' technology readiness on the acceptance of mobile electronic medical record systems. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013, 13:88.
11. Asua J, Orruño E, Reviriego E, Gagnon M: Healthcare professional acceptance of telemonitoring for chronic care patients in primary care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012, 12:139.
12. Zhang HP, Cocosila MP, Archer NP: Factors of Adoption of Mobile Information Technology by Homecare Nurses: A Technology Acceptance Model 2 Approach. Comput Inform Nurs 2010, 28:49-56
13. Aggelidis VP, Chatzoglou PD: Using a modified technology acceptance model in hospitals. Int J Med Inform 2009, 78:115-126
14. Chang HC, Liu CF, Hwang HG: Exploring Nursing e-Learning Systems Success Based on Information System Success Model. Comput Inform Nurs 2011, 29:741-747.
15. Walter Z, Lopez MS: Physician acceptance of information technologies: Role of perceived threat to professional autonomy. Decis Support Syst 2008, 46:206-215. 68.
16. World Economic Forum. The Global Information Technology Report 2013 URL: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF-GITR-Report-2013.pdf. Accessed: 2014-04-05.
17. Liu CF, Hwang HG, Chang HC: E-Healthcare Maturity in Taiwan. Telemed J E Health 2011, 17:569-573.
18. Källander K, Tibenderana JK, Akpogheneta OJ, Strachan DL, Hill Z, Ten Asbroek AH, Conteh L, Kirkwood BR, Meek SR: Mobile Health (mHealth) Approaches and Lessons for Increased Performance and Retention of Community Health Workers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Review. J Med Internet Res 2013, 15:e17.
19. CPRI Work Group on CPR Description: Computer-based Patient Record Description of Content. Schaumburg, IL: Computer-based Patient Record Institute; 1996.
20. Institute of Medicine: The Computer-Based Patient Record: An Essential Technology for Health Care Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997.
21. Department of Health and Human Services: The National Alliance for Health Information Technology report to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology on defining key health information technology terms. 2008.
22. Ying A: Mobile Physician Order Entry. J Healthc Inf Manag 2003, 17:58-63
23. Bielli E, Carminati F, La Capra S, Lina M, Brunelli C, Tamburini M: A Wireless Health Outcomes Monitoring System (WHOMS): development and field testing with cancer patients using mobile phones. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2004, 4:7.
24. Wu RC, Or MS, Chignell M, Straus SE: Usability of a mobile electronic medical record prototype: a verbal protocol analysis. Inform Health Soc Care 2008, 33:139-149.
25. Hsieh SH, Hou IC, Cheng PH, Tan CT, Shen PC, Hsu KP, Hsieh SL, Lai F: Design and implementation of web-based mobile electronic medication administration record. J Med Syst 2010, 34:947-958
26. Hsu SC, Liu CF, Weng RH, Chen CJ: Factors influencing nurses' intentions toward the use of mobile electronic medical records. Comput Inform Nurs 2013, 31:124-132.
27. Venkatesh V, Davis FD: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci 2000, 46(2):186-204.
28. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quart 2003, 27:425-478
29. Venkatesh V, Bala H: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sci 2008, 39:273-315
30. De Lone WH, McLean ER: Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inform Syst Res 1992, 3:60-95
31. Delone WH, McLean ER: The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: a ten-year update. J Manage Inform Syst 2003, 19:9-30.
32. Cenfetelli RT: Inhibitors and enablers as dual factor concepts in technology usage. J Assoc Inf Syst 2004, 5:472-492.
33. Lee Y, Kozar KA, Larsen KRT: The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2003, 12:752-780.
34. Fishbein M, Ajzen I: Belief attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.
35. Ajzen I: From intention to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Edited by Kuhl J, Bechmann J. Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1985.
36. Szajna B: Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Manage Sci 1996, 42:85-92.
37. Holden RJ, Karsh BT: The Technology Acceptance Model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform 2010, 43:159-172.
38. Harvey JD: Towards a user-friendly future. The impact of information technology within primary health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989, 5:79-89.
39. Dowswell G, Harrison S, Wright J: Clinical guidelines: attitudes, information processes and culture in English primary care. Int J Health Plan M 2001, 16:107-124.
40. Hayward RSA, Moore KA: Canadian physicians' attitudes about and preferences regarding clinical practice guidelines. Can Med Assoc J 1997, 156:1715-1723.
41. Lowenhaupt M: Removing barriers to technology. Physician Exec 2004, 30:12-14.
42. Kim J, Park HA: Development of a health information technology acceptance model using consumers' health behavior intention. J Med Internet Res 2012, 14:e133.
43. Zhou T: Examining mobile banking user adoption from the perspectives of trust and flow experience. Inf Technol Manag 2012, 13:27-37.
44. Mallat N, Rossi M, Tuunainen VK, Öörni A: The impact of use context on mobile services acceptance: the case of mobile ticketing. Inform Manage 2009, 46:190-195.
45. Huang JH, Lin YR, Chuang ST: Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning: A perspective of the extended technology acceptance model. Electron Libr 2007, 25:585-598.
46. Schierz PG, Schilke O, Wirtz BW: Understanding consumer acceptance of mobile payment services: an empirical analysis. Electron Commer R A 2010, 9:209-216.
47. Park E, Ohm J: Factors influencing users' employment of mobile map services. Telematics and Informatics 2014, 31:253-265.
48. Park E, Baek S, Ohm J, Chang HJ: Determinants of player acceptance of mobile social network games: An application of extended technology acceptance model. Telematics and Informatics 2014, 31:3-15.
49. Park E, Del Pobil AP: Extending the technology acceptance model in remote pointing technology: identifying the role of perceived mobility and control. Sensor Rev 2013, 33:40-47.
50. Park E, Del Pobil AP: Technology acceptance model for the use of tablet PCs. Wireless Pers Commun 2013, 73:1561-1572.
51. Steinhubl SR: Can mobile health technologies transform health care? JAMA 2013, 310:2395-2396.
52. Davis FD: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart 1989, 13:319-340.
53. Lee T: The impact of perceptions of interactivity on customer trust and transaction intentions in mobile commerce. J Electron Commer Res 2005, 6:165-180.
54. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR: The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv Int Market 2009, 20:277-319.
55. Fornell C, Larcker DF: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res 1981, 18:39-50.
56. Chin WW: How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares Concepts, Methods and Applications. 1st edition. Edited by Vinzi VE, Chin WW, Henseler J, Wang H. Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2010.
57. O'Leary-Kelly SW, Vokurka RJ: The empirical assessment of construct validity. J Oper Manag 1998, 16:387-405.
58. Wetzels M, Schroder GO, Oppen VC: Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quart 2009, 33:177-195.
59. Ringle CM, Wende S, Will A: SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). Hamburg, Germany: SmartPLS. URL: http://www.smartpls.de/forum/. Accessed: 2014-04-05.
60. Pellegrino ED: Patient and physician autonomy: conflicting rights and obligations in the physician-patient relationship. J Contemp Health Law Policy 1994, 10:47-68.
61. Williams GC, McGregor HA, King D, Nelson CC, Glasgow RE: Variation in perceived competence, glycemic control, and patient satisfaction: relationship to autonomy support from physicians. Patient Educ Couns 2005, 57:39-45.
62. Featherman MS, Pavlou PA: Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. Int J Hum-Comput 2003, 59:451-474
63. Mallat N, Rossi M, Tuunainen VK, Öörni A: An empirical investigation of mobile ticketing service adoption in public transportation. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 2008, 12:57-65
64. World Health Organization: mHealth: New Horizons for Health Through Mobile Technologies. Geneva: WHO; 2011