Design simplicity influences patient portal use: The role of aesthetic evaluations for technology acceptance

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 23, Issue e1, 2016, Pages e157-e161

  Lazard, Allison J ^a   Watkins, Ivan ^b   Mackert, Michael S ^b,c   Xie, Bo ^b   Stephens, Keri K ^b   Shalev, Heidi ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d Austin Regional Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

eHealth; Patient portals; Technology acceptance model; Web aesthetics

Indexed keywords

ANTECEDENT VARIABLE; CLINICAL STUDY; HUMAN; STATISTICAL MODEL; TELEHEALTH; COMPUTER INTERFACE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; ESTHETICS; INTERNET; MEDICAL RECORD;

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; ESTHETICS; HEALTH RECORDS, PERSONAL; HUMANS; INTERNET; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84964963297     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocv174     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Eysenbach G. What is e-health? J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(2):e20.
2. Lin CT, Wittevrongel L, Moore L, et al., An Internet-based patient-provider communication system: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(4):e47.
3. Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Hoerbst A. The impact of electronic patient portals on patient care: a systematic review of controlled trials. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(6):e162.
4. Office of the National Coordinator. What is a patient portal? http://www. healthit.gov/providers-professionals/faqs/what-patient-portal. Accessed March 2, 2015.
5. Kruse CS, Argueta DA, Lopez L, et al. Patient and provider attitudes toward the use of patient portals for the management of chronic disease: a systematic review. J Med Interent Res. 2015;17(2):e40.
6. Lavie T, Tractinsky N. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2004;60(3):269-298.
7. Creusen M, Snelders S. Product appearance and consumer pleasure. In:Green WD, Jordon PW, eds. Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability. New York: Taylor and Francis; 2002:69-75.
8. Tuch AN, Presslaber EE, Stocklin M, et al. The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of websites: working towards understanding aesthetic judgments. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2012;70:794-811.
9. Hazzenzahl M. The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. HumComput Interact. 2004;19(4):319-349.
10. Lindgaard G, Fernandes G, Dudek C, et al. Attention web designers: you have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! Behav Inform Technol. 2006;25(2):115-126.
11. Lindgaard G, Dudek C. User satisfaction, aesthetics and usability: beyond reductionism. IFIP 17th World Computer Congress. Montreal, Canada:Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
12. Or CK, Karsh B. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. JAMIA. 2009;16(4):550-560.
13. Moshagen M, Thielsch MT. Facets of visual aesthetics. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2010;68(10):689-709.
14. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13:319-340.
15. Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sci. 2008;39(2):273-315.
16. Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Chan FKY, et al. Extending the two-stage information systems continuance model: Incorporating UTAUT predictors and the role of context. Inform Syst J. 2011;21(6):527-555.
17. Wilson EV, Lankton NK. Modeling patients' acceptance of provider-delivered e-health. JAMIA. 2004;11(4):241-248.
18. Or CK, Karsh B, Severtson DJ, et al. Factors affecting home care patients' acceptance of a web-based interactive self-management technology. JAMIA. 2011;18:51-59.
19. Venkatesh V, Morris G, Davis G, et al. User acceptance of information technology:toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003;27(3):425-478.
20. King WR, He J. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inform Manag. 2006;43(6):740-755.
21. Kim D, Chang H. Key functional characteristics in designing and operating health information websites for user satisfaction: an application of the extended technology acceptance model. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(11):790-800.
22. Cyr D, Kindra G, Dash S. Website design, trust, satisfaction, and e-loyalty:the Indian experience. Online Inform Rev. 2008;32(6):773-790.
23. Moshagen M, Muscha J, Göritz A. A blessing, not a curse: experimental evidence for beneficial effects of visual aesthetics on performance. Ergonomics. 2009;52(10):1311-1320.
24. Berlyne DE. Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps Toward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation. Washington: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.; 1974.
25. Kaplan D. Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2008.
26. US Department of Health and Human Services. Health People 2020 -Improving the Health of Americans 2015. http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/default.aspx. Accessed March 2, 2015.
27. Otte-Trojel T, de Bont A, Rundall TG, et al. What do we know about developing patient portals? a systematic literature review. JAMIA. 2015:1-7.
28. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decision Sci. 1996;27(3):451-481.
29. van der Heijden H. Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in The Netherlands. Inform Manag. 2003;40(6):541-549.
30. Lazard A, Mackert M. User evaluations of design complexity: the impact of visual perceptions for effective online health communication. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83:726-735.
31. Seckler M, Opwis K, Tuch AN. Linking objective design factors with subjective aesthetics: an experimental study on how structure and color of websites affect the facets of users' visual aesthetic perception. Computer in Human Behav. 2015;49:375-389.
32. Lazard A, Mackert M. E-health first impressions and visual evaluations: key design principles for attention and appeal. Commun Design Quarterly. 2015;3(4):25-34.