Using Stakeholder Analysis to Identify Users in Healthcare Information Systems Research: Who is the Real User?

International Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and Informatics (IJHISI)

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 1-15

  McLeod, Alexander J ^a   Clark, Jan Guynes ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85001817356     PISSN: 15553396     EISSN: 1555340X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jhisi.2009070101     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 557–582.
2. Avgerou, C. (2001). The significance of context in information systems and organizational change. Information Systems Journal, 11(1), 43–63.
3. Baba, M., Seckin, D., & Kapdagli, S. (2005). A comparison of teledermatology using store and forward methodology alone, and in combination with web camera videoconferencing. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 11(7), 354–361.
4. Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1989). Rethinking the concept of user involvement. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 52–63.
5. Chau, P. Y. (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 185–204.
6. Chiasson, M. W., & Davidson, E. (2004). Pushing the contextual envelope: Developing and diffusing is theory for health information systems research. Information and Organization, 14(3), 155–188.
7. Davies, G. (2002). A user by any other name. Paper presented at the Theoretical Perspectives in Human Computer Interaction.
8. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
9. DeLone, W. D., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information system success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.
10. DeLone, W. D., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The Delone and Mclean model of information system success: A ten year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.
11. Field, M. J. (1996). Telemedicine: A guide to assessing telecommunications in health care. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
12. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
13. Ginsberg, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy: A critical review of the empirical research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 421–434.
14. Goldschmidt, P. G. (2005). Hit and MIS: Implications of health information technology and medical information systems. Communications of the ACM, 48(10), 68–74.
15. Hiltz, S., & Johnson, K. (1990). User satisfaction with computer mediated communication systems. Management Science, 36(6), 739–764.
16. Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y. K., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 91–112.
17. Huston, J. L., & Burton, D. C. (1997). Patient satisfaction with multispecialty interactive telecon-sultations. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 3(4), 205–208.
18. Huston, T., & Huston, J. (2000). Is telemedicine a practical reality? Communications of the ACM, 43(6), 91–95.
19. ISWorld. (2006). MIS journal rankings. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from http://www.isworld.org/csaunders/rankings-0517.htm
20. Ives, B., & Olson, M. (1984). User involvement and MIS success: A review of research. Management Science, 30(5), 586–603.
21. Khoumbati, K., Themistocleous, M., & Irani, Z. (2006). Evaluating the adoption of enterprise application integration in health-care organizations. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(4), 69–108.
22. Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 197–235.
23. Lamb, R., & Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 197–236.
24. LeRouge, C., Hevner, A. R., & Collins, R. W. (2007). It's more than just use: An exploration of telemedicine use quality. Decision Support Systems, 43(4), 1287–1304.
25. Login, A., & Areas, S. (2007). An empirical examination of patient-physician portal acceptance. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 751–760.
26. Ma, Q., & Liu, L. (2004). The technology acceptance model: A meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59–72.
27. Magni, M., & Pennarola, F. (2008). Intra-organizational relationships and technology acceptance. International Journal of Information Management.
28. Mair, F., & Whitten, P. (2000). Information in practice: Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. British Medical Journal, 320, 1517–1520.
29. Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2008). Innovation and SMES: Misaligned perspectives and goals among entrepreneurs, academics, and policy makers. Technovation.
30. McKeen, J., Guimaraes, T., & Wetherbe, J. (1994). The relationship between user participation and user satisfaction: Investigation of four contingency factors. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 427–452.
31. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identifcation and salience: Defning the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
32. Norman, D. (2005). Human centered design considered harmful. Interactions, 12(4), 14–19.
33. Pouloudi, A. (1999). Aspects of the stakeholder concept and their implications for information systems development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, HA.
34. Powers, R., & Dickson, G. (1973). MIS project management: Myths, opinions, and reality. California Management Review, 15(3), 147–156.
35. Rawstorne, P., Jayasuriya, R., & Caputi, P. (2000). Issues in predicting and explaining usage behaviors with the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior when usage is mandatory. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
36. Reponen, T. (1994). Organizational information management strategies. Information Systems Journal, 4(1), 27–44.
37. Shah, S. G., & Robinson, I. (2007). Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 23(1), 131–137.
38. Shneiderman, B. (1987). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human computer interaction. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
39. Van de Ven, A. H. (2005). Advancing research in organizations through learning communities. Research in Organizations: Foundations and Methods of Inquiry.
40. Varvasovszky, Z., & Brugha, R. (2000). How to do (or not to do)…A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 338–345.
41. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.
42. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
43. Wixom, B., & Todd, P. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85–102.
44. Wong, Y. K., Hui, E., & Woo, J. (2005). A community based exercise programme for older persons with knee pain using telemedicine. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 11(6), 310–316.