Cited by 654Electronic Health Records SystemsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Systematic Review of Factors Influencing the Adoption of Information and Communication Technologies by Healthcare Professionals

Open access
Gagnon, Marie-Pierre, Desmartis, Marie, Labrecque, Michel, Car, Josip, Pagliari, Claudia, Pluye, Pierre, Frémont, Pierre, Gagnon, Johanne +2 more·2012·Journal of Medical Systems

Abstract

This systematic review of mixed methods studies focuses on factors that can facilitate or limit the implementation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in clinical settings. Systematic searches of relevant bibliographic databases identified studies about interventions promoting ICT adoption by healthcare professionals. Content analysis was performed by two reviewers using a specific grid. One hundred and one (101) studies were included in the review. Perception of the benefits of the innovation (system usefulness) was the most common facilitating factor, followed by ease of use. Issues regarding design, technical concerns, familiarity with ICT, and time were the most frequent limiting factors identified. Our results suggest strategies that could effectively promote the successful adoption of ICT in healthcare professional practices.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10916-010-9473-4

Cites

136 of 136 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Concerns about reduced autonomy or trust, independence of practice or inability to practise to full scope impeded implementation.

    “Concerns about reduced autonomy or trust, independence of practice or inability to practise to full scope were all shown to impede implementation [16, 31, 35, 39, 54, 55].”
  • Conflict with patient expectations and concerns about patient and health professional interaction could decrease acceptability of an intervention and impede implementation.

    “Conflict with patient expectations [75] and concerns about patient and health professional interaction, for example, when using the new information system, nurses spent more time on documentation than on direct care [31], could lead to a decrease in acceptability of an intervention and subsequently impede implementation.”
  • A lack of confidence in one's own ability to carry out specific tasks and the feeling of not having authority or enough influence to change or carry out procedures impeded implementation.

    “a lack of confidence in one’s own ability to carry out specific tasks and the feeling of not having authority or enough influence to change or carry out the procedures were found to impede implementation [31, 66].”
  • Barriers to implementation included lack of time and resources to perform additional data entry or deal with paperwork.

    “support to perform additional data entry or deal with paperwork [31, 67, 71, 72] were reported as barriers.”
  • Competing priorities, lack of motivation, and low awareness of the intervention were shown to impede implementation.

    “Competing priorities [42, 57, 59, 62, 63, 70, 82], lack of motivation [31, 39, 42, 57, 68, 81] and low awareness of the intervention [31, 35, 38, 39, 43, 44, 68, 75, 80, 81] were shown to impede implementation.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gagnon, M.-P., Desmartis, M., Labrecque, M., Car, J., Pagliari, C., Pluye, P., Frémont, P., Gagnon, J., Tremblay, N., & Légaré, F.
Affiliations
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Gagnon, Marie-Pierre
Venue
Journal of Medical Systems
Published
2010-03-30
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
241-277
ISSN
  • 0148-5598 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-689X
OpenAlex
W2079522214
Cited by
637
References
136
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 68 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 10
FWCI
1.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Systems (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (79141)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
information and communication technologies, ICT adoption, healthcare workers, technology implementation, enabling factors, limiting factors, perceived usefulness, ease of use, system usefulness
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Environment, Health Personnel, Humans, Information Systems, Time Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review