Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 193

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Factors influencing decision support system acceptance

Shibl, Rania, Lawley, Meredith, Debuse, Justin·2013·Decision Support Systems
DOI 10.1016/j.dss.2012.09.018
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.dss.2012.09.018

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Ahearn, 2003, General practitioners' perceptions of the pharmaceutical decision-support tools in their prescribing software, Medical Journal of Australia, 179, 34, 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05415.x · DOI
  2. Arnott, 2008, Eight key issues for the decision support systems discipline, Decision Support Systems, 44, 657, 10.1016/j.dss.2007.09.003 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Beynon, 2002, A new paradigm for computer-based decision support, Decision Support Systems, 33, 127, 10.1016/S0167-9236(01)00140-3 · doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(01)00140-3
  4. Burns, 2000, Narrative text biases attending the critical incidents technique, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3, 178, 10.1108/13522750010349279 · DOI
  5. Carson, 1998, Clinical decision support, systems methodology, and telemedicine: their role in the management of chronic disease, IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 2, 80, 10.1109/4233.720526 · DOI
  6. Chau, 2002, Investigating healthcare professionals' decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories, Information Management, 39, 297, 10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00098-2 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Delaney, 1999, Can computerised decision support systems deliver improved quality in primary care?, British Medical Journal, 319, 1281, 10.1136/bmj.319.7220.1281 · DOI
  8. Eberhardt, 2012, Clinical decision support systems: potential with pitfalls, Journal of Surgical Oncology, 105, 502, 10.1002/jso.23053 · DOI
  9. Elbaltagi, 2005, Evaluating the factors affecting DSS usage by senior managers in local authorities in Egypt, Journal of Global Information Management, 13, 42, 10.4018/jgim.2005040103 · DOI
  10. Ely, 2002, Obstacles to answering doctors' questions about patient care with evidence: qualitative study, British Medical Journal, 324, 710, 10.1136/bmj.324.7339.710 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Emery, 2000, Computer support for interpreting family histories of breast and ovarian cancer in primary care: comparative study with simulated cases, British Medical Journal, 321, 28, 10.1136/bmj.321.7252.28 · DOI
  12. Eom, 1998, A survey of decision support system applications (1988–1994), The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49, 109, 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600507 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Garfield, 2005, Acceptance of ubiquitous computing, Information Systems Management, 22, 24, 10.1201/1078.10580530/45520.22.4.20050901/90027.3 · DOI
  14. Gilmore, 1996, Integrative qualitative methods in a services context, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 14, 21, 10.1108/02634509610131126 · doi:10.1108/02634509610131126
  15. Gönül, 2006, The effects of structural characteristics of explanations on use of a DSS, Decision Support Systems, 42, 1481, 10.1016/j.dss.2005.12.003 · DOI
  16. Hagland, 2003, Reduced errors ahead. Organizations are moving down the road to patient safety, despite bumps and curves, Healthcare Informatics, 20, 31
  17. Igbaria, 1997, Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model, MIS Quarterly, 21, 279, 10.2307/249498 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Jensen, 2007, Hospitality and hostility in hospitals: a case study of an EPR adoption among surgeons, European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 672, 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000713 · DOI
  19. Kawamoto, 2005, Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success, British Medical Journal, 330, 762, 10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8F · DOI · Paper page
  20. Kayande, 2009, How incorporating feedback mechanisms in a DSS affects DSS evaluations, Information Systems Research, 20, 527, 10.1287/isre.1080.0198 · DOI
  21. Lee, 2003, The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12, 752
  22. Leung, 2003, Incentives and barriers that influence clinical computerisation in Hong Kong: a population-based physician survey, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 10, 201, 10.1197/jamia.M1202 · DOI
  23. Lorenzi, 2000, Managing change, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7, 116, 10.1136/jamia.2000.0070116 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Mackrell, 2009, A qualitative case study of the adoption and use of an agricultural decision support system in the Australian cotton industry: the socio-technical view, Decision Support Systems, 47, 143, 10.1016/j.dss.2009.02.004 · DOI
  25. Moores, 2012, Towards an integrated model of IT acceptance in healthcare, Decision Support Systems, 10.1016/j.dss.2012.04.014 · DOI
  26. Nevo, 2007, A temporal approach to expectations and desires from knowledge management systems, Decision Support Systems, 44, 298, 10.1016/j.dss.2007.04.003 · DOI
  27. O'Leary, 2003, Auditor environmental assessments, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 4, 275, 10.1016/j.accinf.2003.09.001 · DOI
  28. Pearson, 2003, An empirical investigation into the relationship between organisational culture and computer efficacy as moderated by age and gender, The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 43, 58, 10.1080/08874417.2003.11647086 · DOI
  29. Pennington, 2006, The effects of qualitative overload on technology acceptance, Journal of Information Systems, 20, 25, 10.2308/jis.2006.20.2.25 · DOI
  30. Perry, 1998, Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing, European Journal of Marketing, 32, 785, 10.1108/03090569810232237 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Persson, 2000, Evaluation of a computer-based decision support system for treatment of hypertension with drugs: retrospective, nonintervention testing of cost and guideline adherence, Journal of Internal Medicine, 247, 87, 10.1046/j.1365-2796.2000.00581.x · DOI
  32. Ruland, 2002, Handheld technology to improve patient care: evaluating a support system for preference-based care planning at the bedside, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 9, 192, 10.1197/jamia.M0891 · DOI
  33. Scally, 1998, Clinical governance and the drive for quality improvement in the new NHS in England, British Medical Journal, 317, 61, 10.1136/bmj.317.7150.61 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Spil, 2007, Information systems and healthcare XXIII: exploring interoperability of electronic healthcare records by studying demand and supply in the Netherlands, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 20, 996, 10.17705/1CAIS.02059 · DOI
  35. Sullivan, 1995, Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports, British Medical Journal, 311, 848, 10.1136/bmj.311.7009.848 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Sun, 2006, The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance, International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, 53, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.013 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Taylor, 1995, Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: a study of consumer adoption intentions, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 137, 10.1016/0167-8116(94)00019-K · DOI · Paper page
  38. Teich, 2000, Effects of computerized physician order entry on prescribing practices, Archives of Internal Medicine, 160, 2741, 10.1001/archinte.160.18.2741 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Venkatesh, 2006, Where to go from here? Thoughts on future directions for research on individual-level technology adoption with a focus on decision making, Decision Sciences, 37, 497, 10.1111/j.1540-5414.2006.00136.x · DOI · Paper page
  40. Venkatesh, 2000, A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies, Management Science, 46, 186, 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Venkatesh, 2000, Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior, MIS Quarterly, 24, 115, 10.2307/3250981 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Venkatesh, 2002, User acceptance enablers in individual decision-making about technology: toward an integrated model, Decision Sciences, 33, 297, 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2002.tb01646.x · DOI · Paper page
  43. Venkatesh, 2003, User acceptance of information technology: towards a unified view, MIS Quarterly, 27, 425, 10.2307/30036540 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Walton, 1997, Evaluation of computer support for prescribing (CAPSULE) using simulated cases, British Medical Journal, 315, 791, 10.1136/bmj.315.7111.791 · DOI

Cited by

See all 193

Metadata

Authors
Shibl, R., Lawley, M., & Debuse, J.
Venue
Decision Support Systems
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-01
Volume
54
Issue
2
Pages
953-961
ISSN
0167-9236 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.dss.2012.09.018
OpenAlex
W2036919078
Cited by
193
References
8
FWCI
13.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Factors influencing decision support system acceptance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.dss.2012.09.018
The paper
Shibl, R., Lawley, M., & Debuse, J. (2013). Factors influencing decision support system acceptance. Decision Support Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.09.018

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.