The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review and a framework of handheld computer adoption in healthcare
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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.”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [42]
In the citing paper
“patient values and preferences [3, 33] and concerns about clinician-patient relationships [42, 77] impeded implementation”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [42]
In the citing paper
“competencies, e.g. adequate training and good computer experience/skills were shown to facilitate implementation [16, 17, 31, 32, 34, 41, 42, 44, 54–58, 60, 67, 70, 77, 80, 81, 84–86].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [42]
In the citing paper
“The costs of an intervention and whether practices could obtain a positive return on investment [51] and in particular the time invested [42, 51] were considered to be features that would promote implementation.”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [42]
Citations
Cites
Davis, F. D. (1993) · International Journal of Man-Machine Studies · doi:10.1006/imms.1993.1022 · Cited by 4,754
Mellor, D. H. (1981) · Cited by 1,699
Improving Safety with Information Technology
Bates, D. W., & Gawande, A. A. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa020847 · Cited by 1,544
Communication behaviours in a hospital setting: an observational study
Coiera, E. W., & Tombs, V. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7132.673 · Cited by 488
Handheld Computing in Medicine
Fischer, S. E., Stewart, T. E., Mehta, S., Wax, R. S., & Lapinsky, S. E. (2003) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1180 · Cited by 318
Mobile information and communication tools in the hospital
Ammenwerth, E., Buchauer, A., Bludau, H.-B., & Haux, R. (2000) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(99)00056-8 · Cited by 208
Doctors' experience with handheld computers in clinical practice: qualitative study
McAlearney, A. S., Schweikhart, S. B., & Medow, M. A. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1162 · Cited by 187
Information technology and medication safety: what is the benefit?
Kaushal, R. (2002) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/qhc.11.3.261 · Cited by 154
Clinician Use of a Palmtop Drug Reference Guide
Rothschild, J. M. (2002) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1001 · Cited by 154
Leung, G. M., Johnston, J. M., Tin, K. Y. K., Wong, I. O. L., Ho, L.-M., Lam, W. W. T., & Lam, T.-H. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1090 · Cited by 130
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Carroll, 2001, Proc. AMIA Symp.
- d’Hemecourt, 2001, Assistance in the palm of your hand, Healthc. Inform., 18, 102
- Rosenberg, 2001, Personal digital assistants: an asset to managing healthcare, J. Massachusetts Dent. Soc., 49, 32
- Rosenbloom, 2003, Medical error reduction and PDAs, Int. Pediatr., 18, 69
- Kiel, 2001, Using personal digital assistant to enhance outcomes, J. Healthc. Inf. Manage., 15, 237
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ross, J., Stevenson, F., Lau, R., & Murray, E. (2016) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0510-7 · Cited by 1,011
Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: a structural equation model
Wu, J.-H., Wang, S.-C., & Lin, L.-M. (2007) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.06.006 · Cited by 603
Lau, R., Stevenson, F., Ong, B. N., Dziedzic, K., Treweek, S., Eldridge, S., Everitt, H., Kennedy, A., Qureshi, N., Rogers, A., et al. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0396-4 · Cited by 533
“Infrastructure [14, 15, 42, 53, 58, 67, 72, 74, 75, 82, 86, 101, 104] B: Inadequate employment contracts, practice facilities and functioning of the primary care team [85] F: Mechanism of support and infrastructure to support health care professionals [85] √ √ √ √ √”
BackgroundInfluentialMair, F. S., May, C., O’Donnell, C., Finch, T., Sullivan, F., & Murray, E. (2012) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.11.099424 · Cited by 553
Using a modified technology acceptance model in hospitals
AGGELIDIS, V, & CHATZOGLOU, P. (2009) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.06.006 · Cited by 553
Metadata
- 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
- ORCID
- 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
