Cited by 315Electronic Health Records SystemsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

A review and a framework of handheld computer adoption in healthcare

Lu, Yen-Chiao, Xiao, Yan, Sears, Andrew, Jacko, Julie A.·2005·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Wide adoption of mobile computing technology can potentially improve information access, enhance workflow, and promote evidence-based practice to make informed and effective decisions at the point of care. Handheld computers or personal digital assistants (PDAs) offer portable and unobtrusive access to clinical data and relevant information at the point of care. This article reviews the literature on issues related to adoption of PDAs in health care and barriers to PDA adoption. Studies showed that PDAs were used widely in health care providers' practice, and the level of use is expected to rise rapidly. Most care providers found PDAs to be functional and useful in areas of documentation, medical reference, and access to patient data. Major barriers to adoption were identified as usability, security concerns, and lack of technical and organizational support. PDAs offer health care practitioners advantages to enhance their clinical practice. However, better designed PDA hardware and software applications, more institutional support, seamless integration of PDA technology with hospital information systems, and satisfactory security measures are necessary to increase acceptance and wide use of PDAs in healthcare.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.03.001

Cites

83 of 83 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

1 of the 84 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lu, Y.-C., Xiao, Y., Sears, A., & Jacko, J. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore County (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Xiao, Yan
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-06
Volume
74
Issue
5
Pages
409-422
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2016477529
Cited by
315
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 18
FWCI
4.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
personal digital assistants, technology adoption, barriers to adoption, clinical documentation, patient data access, usability, data security, organizational support, hospital information system integration
MeSH terms
Attitude to Computers, Delivery of Health Care, Diffusion of Innovation, Health Personnel, United States, Access to Information, Computers, Handheld

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