Cited by 287Technology Adoption and User BehaviourElectronic Health Records SystemsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Explaining physicians’ acceptance of EHCR systems: An extension of TAM with trust and risk factors

Ortega Egea, José Manuel, Román González, María Victoria·2011·Computers in Human Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.010

Cites

117 of 117 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ortega Egea, J. M., & Román González, M. V.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
319-332
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2030077465
Cited by
287
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 6
FWCI
17.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
electronic health records, technology acceptance, physicians, technology acceptance model, institutional trust, risk perception, information integrity, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, intention to use, health information technology adoption

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