The intention to use an electronic health record and its antecedents among three different categories of clinical staff

BackgroundLike other sectors, the healthcare sector has to deal with the issue of users’ acceptance of IT. In healthcare, different factors affecting healthcare professionals’ acceptance of software applications have been investigated. Unfortunately, inconsistent results have been found, maybe because the different studies focused on different IT and occupational groups. Consequently, more studies are needed to investigate these implications for recent technology, such as Electronic Health Records (EHR).MethodsGiven these findings in the existing literature, we pose the following research question: “To what extent do the different categories of clinical staff (physicians, paraprofessionals and administrative personnel) influence the intention to use an EHR and its antecedents?” To answer this research question we develop a research model that we empirically tested via a survey, including the following variables: intention to use, ease of use, usefulness, anxiety, self-efficacy, trust, misfit and data security. Our purpose is to clarify the possible differences existing between different staff categories.ResultsFor the entire personnel, all the hypotheses are confirmed: anxiety, self-efficacy, trust influence ease of use; ease of use, misfit, self-efficacy, data security impact usefulness; usefulness and ease of use contribute to intention to use the EHR. They are also all confirmed for physicians, residents, carers and nurses but not for secretaries and assistants. Secretaries’ and assistants’ perception of the ease of use of EHR does not influence their intention to use it and they could not be influenced by self-efficacy in the development of their perception of the ease of use of EHR.ConclusionsThese results may be explained by the fact that secretaries, unlike physicians and nurses, have to follow rules and procedures for their work, including working with EHR. They have less professional autonomy than healthcare professionals and no medical responsibility. This result is also in line with previous literature highlighting that administrators are more motivated by the use of IT in healthcare.

[1]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. , 1982 .

[2]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[3]  N. Melone.  A theoretical assessment of the user-satisfaction construct in information systems research , 1990 .

[4]  Henri Barki,et al.  Measuring User Participation, User Involvement, and User Attitude , 1994, MIS Q..

[5]  Henri Barki,et al.  Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use , 1994 .

[6]  L. Hosmer.  TRUST: THE CONNECTING LINK BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY AND PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS , 1995 .

[7]  Joseph P. Cannon,et al.  An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer–Seller Relationships: , 1997 .

[8]  J. P. Wanous,et al.  Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures? , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  James G. Anderson,et al.  Clearing the way for physicians' use of clinical information systems , 1997, CACM.

[10]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies , 1997 .

[11]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[12]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[13]  Marc Berg,et al.  Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges , 2001, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[14]  D. G. Morrison,et al.  Do We Really Need Multiple-Item Measures in Service Research? , 2001 .

[15]  Paul Jen-Hwa Hu,et al.  Information Technology Acceptance by Individual Professionals: A Model Comparison Approach , 2001, Decis. Sci..

[16]  Sonja Wiley-Patton,et al.  Test of the technology acceptance model for the internet in pediatrics , 2002, AMIA.

[17]  Alan Durndell,et al.  Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample , 2002, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[18]  Susan A. Brown,et al.  Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology , 2002, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[19]  Paul Jen-Hwa Hu,et al.  Investigating healthcare professionals' decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories , 2002, Inf. Manag..

[20]  D. S. Simpson,et al.  Evaluating a Spoken Dialogue System for recording clinical observations during an endoscopic examination , 2003, Medical informatics and the Internet in medicine.

[21]  E. Murray,et al.  The impact of health information on the internet on the physician-patient relationship: patient perceptions. , 2003, Archives of internal medicine.

[22]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[23]  Bill Doolin,et al.  Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system , 2004, Inf. Syst. J..

[24]  Suzanne Rivard,et al.  A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation , 2005, MIS Q..

[25]  Mun Y. Yi,et al.  Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative view , 2006, Inf. Manag..

[26]  Pascale Carayon,et al.  New Technology Implementation in Health Care , 2006 .

[27]  Tina Blegind Jensen,et al.  Hospitality and hostility in hospitals: a case study of an EPR adoption among surgeons , 2007 .

[28]  Richard J. Holden,et al.  A Review of Medical Error Reporting System Design Considerations and a Proposed Cross-Level Systems Research Framework , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[29]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Dead Or Alive? The Development, Trajectory And Future Of Technology Adoption Research , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[30]  J. Rossiter,et al.  The Predictive Validity of Multiple-Item versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Constructs , 2007 .

[31]  Prodromos D. Chatzoglou,et al.  Methods for evaluating hospital information systems: a literature review , 2008 .

[32]  Martin Eccles,et al.  Implementation Science Healthcare Professionals' Intentions and Behaviours: a Systematic Review of Studies Based on Social Cognitive Theories , 2008 .

[33]  Su-Chao Chang,et al.  An extension of trust and TAM model with IDT in the adoption of the electronic logistics information system in HIS in the medical industry , 2008, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[34]  P. Duyck,et al.  User Acceptance of a Picture Archiving and Communication System , 2008, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[35]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions , 2008, Decis. Sci..

[36]  Prodromos D. Chatzoglou,et al.  Using a modified technology acceptance model in hospitals , 2009, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[37]  Régis Meissonier,et al.  Toward an ‘IT Conflict-Resistance Theory’: action research during IT pre-implementation , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[38]  Richard J. Holden,et al.  The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care , 2010, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[39]  Xiaojun Zhang,et al.  "Doctors Do Too Little Technology": A Longitudinal Field Study of an Electronic Healthcare System Implementation , 2011, Inf. Syst. Res..

[40]  Fan-Yun Pai,et al.  Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to the introduction of healthcare information systems , 2011 .

[41]  Suzanne Rivard,et al.  An Organizational Culture-Based Theory of Clinical Information Systems Implementation in Hospitals , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[42]  Nadine Vehring,et al.  "Don't pressure me!" Exploring the Anatomy of Voluntariness in the Organizational Adoption of Network Technologies , 2011, ICIS.

[43]  José Manuel Ortega Egea,et al.  Explaining physicians' acceptance of EHCR systems: An extension of TAM with trust and risk factors , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[44]  Rai-Fu Chen,et al.  An investigation on physicians' acceptance of hospital information systems: A case study , 2012, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[45]  Kimberly A. Koester,et al.  Trust, confidentiality, and the acceptability of sharing HIV-related patient data: lessons learned from a mixed methods study about Health Information Exchanges , 2012, Implementation Science.

[46]  Caitlin Murphy,et al.  Semantic text mining support for lignocellulose research , 2012, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[47]  Aziz Sheikh,et al.  Integration of a nationally procured electronic health record system into user work practices , 2012, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[48]  Jan Marco Leimeister,et al.  Determinants of physicians' technology acceptance for e-health in ambulatory care , 2012, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[49]  Adam Reich,et al.  Disciplined doctors: the electronic medical record and physicians' changing relationship to medical knowledge. , 2012, Social science & medicine.

[50]  Andrew Burton-Jones,et al.  From Use to Effective Use: A Representation Theory Perspective , 2013, Inf. Syst. Res..

[51]  Patrick Waterson,et al.  Special issue on human factors and the implementation of health information technology (HIT): Comparing approaches across nations , 2013, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[52]  Aziz Sheikh,et al.  Organizational issues in the implementation and adoption of health information technology innovations: An interpretative review , 2013, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[53]  Steven R. Simon,et al.  Lessons learned from implementation of computerized provider order entry in 5 community hospitals: a qualitative study , 2013, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[54]  Shanton Chang,et al.  Who can you trust? Credibility assessment in online health forums , 2014 .

[55]  Janita F. J. Vos,et al.  Implementing electronic health records in hospitals: a systematic literature review , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[56]  Kyung Young Lee,et al.  Job performance through mobile enterprise systems: The role of organizational agility, location independence, and task characteristics , 2014, Inf. Manag..

[57]  R. Lau,et al.  Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update) , 2016, Implementation Science.

[58]  P. Quester,et al.  Exploring the moderating effect of children's nutritional knowledge on the relationship between product evaluations and food choice. , 2016, Social science & medicine.

[59]  Heiko Gewald,et al.  An International Comparison of Factors Inhibiting Physicians' use of Hospital Information Systems , 2017, CONF-IRM.

[60]  Sven Laumer,et al.  Information quality, user satisfaction, and the manifestation of workarounds: a qualitative and quantitative study of enterprise content management system users , 2017, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[61]  Luis Villa,et al.  A literature review for large-scale health information system project planning, implementation and evaluation , 2017, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[62]  Mher Beglaryan,et al.  Development of a tripolar model of technology acceptance: Hospital-based physicians' perspective on EHR , 2017, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[63]  Heiko Gewald,et al.  Inhibitors of Physicians' Use of Mandatory Hospital Information Systems (HIS) , 2018, Int. J. Heal. Inf. Syst. Informatics.