Cited by 607Technology Adoption and User BehaviourMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: a structural equation model

Wu, Jen-Her, Wang, Shu-Ching, Lin, Li-Min·2007·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Objective This paper presents a revised technology acceptance model to examine what determines mobile healthcare systems (MHS) acceptance by healthcare professionals.Method Conformation factor analysis was performed to test the reliability and validity of the measurement model. The structural equation modeling technique was used to evaluate the causal model.Results The results indicated that compatibility, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use significantly affected healthcare professional behavioral intent. MHS self-efficacy had strong indirect impact on healthcare professional behavioral intent through the mediators of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Yet, the hypotheses for technical support and training effects on the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were not supported.Conclusion This paper provides initial insights into factors that are likely to be significant antecedents of planning and implementing mobile healthcare to enhance professionals' MHS acceptance. The proposed model variables explained 70% of the variance in behavioral intention to use MHS; further study is needed to explore extra significant antecedents of new IT/IS acceptance for mobile healthcare. Such as privacy and security issue, system and information quality, limitations of mobile devices; the above may be other interesting factors for implementing mobile healthcare and could be conducted by qualitative research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.06.006

Cites

66 of 66 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?

  • There was variation in the health IT studied, including telemedicine technology, picture archiving and communications systems, and computerized provider order entry.

    “There was variation in the health IT that served as the focus of the study, including telemedicine technology [32], picture archiving and communications systems [108, 109], and computerized provider order entry (CPOE) [101] (see Table 2 for full list).”
  • Five reviewed studies collected data from a mix of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and medical technicians.

    “Five studies collected data from a mix of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and medical technicians [106-110].”
  • Reviewed studies were set in Taiwan, Hong Kong, the UK, Australia, the mainland US, Hawaii, Belgium, Finland, and Quebec.

    “Several studies were set in Taiwan [103, 109, 110], Hong Kong [32, 48, 49], the UK [96, 104], Australia [102, 111], and the mainland US [98, 99, 106, 107] and Hawaii [97]. Others were set in Belgium [108], Finland [100], and Quebec [101].”
  • In some reviewed studies, the effect of perceived ease of use is as strong as that of perceived usefulness, or stronger.

    “Perhaps so, but in some studies, the effect of PEOU is as strong as that of PU [103], if not much stronger [109].”
  • Variables related to compatibility between health IT and clinical work processes were commonly added in the reviewed studies.

    “For example, the common addition of variables related to compatibility between the health IT and clinical work processes in the reviewed studies [48, 49, 98, 103, 105, 106, 109] is in line with growing interest in the concept of “fit” as a critical need for successful IT design [131, 132], especially in health care [21, 28, 57, 62, 72, 100, 133-135].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wu, J.-H., Wang, S.-C., & Lin, L.-M.
Affiliations
  • National Sun Yat-sen University (TW)
  • Meiho University (TW)
Corresponding author
Wu, Jen-Her
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-01
Volume
76
Issue
1
Pages
66-77
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2041318031
Cited by
603
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 59 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 33
FWCI
35.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education
  • National Science Council (NSC 93-2416-H-110-015)
  • National Sun Yat-sen University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
technology acceptance model, healthcare workers, behavioral intention, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, compatibility, self-efficacy, technical support, training
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Diffusion of Innovation, Taiwan, Models, Organizational, Telemedicine, Point-of-Care Systems, Health Care Sector, 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