The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An investigation on physicians’ acceptance of hospital information systems: A case study
Abstract
Purpose Information technology is used to support a wide range of highly specified healthcare tasks and services. There is, therefore, a need to understand the factors affecting the acceptance of this technology by healthcare professionals. Physicians are key providers of healthcare services and are among the principal users of hospital information systems. Their acceptance of hospital information systems is hence of great significance when evaluating the success of those systems.Method The survey methodology was employed to targeted physicians in the selected case hospital for investigating factors affecting physicians' acceptance of hospital information systems. A total of 202 questionnaires were sent out, with 124 completed copies returned, indicating a valid response rate of 61.4%. We used structural equation modeling to analyze the data.Results The results indicated that top management support (γ=0.431, p<0.001) had a significant impact on perceived usefulness. Project team competency (γ=0.381, p<0.001) and system quality (γ=0.369, p<0.001) had a significant impact on physicians' perceived ease of use of hospital information systems. Physicians' perceptions of the usefulness (β=0.132, p<0.05, R(2)=0.296) and ease of use (β=0.952, p<0.001, R(2)=0.784) of hospital information systems had a significant impact on the acceptance of the systems, accounting for 81.4% of total explained variance.Conclusions Through the understanding of the identified critical factors affecting physicians' HIS acceptance, the planners and managers should ensure that hospital information systems to be introduced into a hospital are useful and ease to use. Effort should be focuses on providing sufficient top management support, selecting qualified project team members, and delivering higher system quality in addressing physicians' clinical needs. Thus, our research results can help planners and managers understand key considerations affecting HIS development and use, and may be used as a reference for system design, development and implementation.
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
“According to the technology acceptance model (TAM) [22] and study on the influence of individual characteristics on the evaluation of hospital information system from Chen [23], high level of professional experience improves self-efficacy on the technology and task, and is negatively related to mental workload and could increase task performance.”
From Workflow interruption and nurses’ mental workload in electronic health record tasks: An observational study (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Herne, H., Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1973) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2344428 · Cited by 35,801
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · Cited by 25,709
Einax, J. W., Zwanziger, H. W., & Geiß, S. (1997) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/352760216x.ch5 · Cited by 18,779
The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update
(2003) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748 · Cited by 11,791
A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance
Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0042 · Cited by 2,835
The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002 · Cited by 2,669
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Tseng, 2009, Applying technology acceptance model to examine factors related to nurses’ acceptance for the use of mobile nursing station in hospitals, J. Taiwan Assoc. Med. Inform., 18, 23
- Chen, 2006, Psychosocial work environment and self-rated health: a comparative study of DC and ERI models in a sample of medical specialists, Taiwan J. Public Health, 25, 93
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kim, S., Lee, K., Hwang, H. Y., & Yoo, S. (2015) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0249-8 · Cited by 321
Predictive factors of telemedicine service acceptance and behavioral intention of physicians
Rho, M. J., Choi, I. Y., & Lee, J. (2014) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.05.005 · Cited by 260
Chen, C., & Tsai, J. (2017) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2017.02.028 · Cited by 232
Predictive factors of physicians’ satisfaction with telemedicine services acceptance
Kissi, J., Dai, B., Dogbe, C. S., Banahene, J., & Ernest, O. (2020) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/1460458219892162 · Cited by 157
Shiferaw, K. B., & Mehari, E. A. (2019) · Informatics in Medicine Unlocked · doi:10.1016/j.imu.2019.100182 · Cited by 162
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, R.-F., & Hsiao, J.-L.
- Affiliations
- Chia Nan University of Pharmacy and Science (TW)
- Corresponding author
- Hsiao, Ju-Ling
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-12
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 810-820
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2007697106
- Cited by
- 150
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 19.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (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
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Keywords
- hospital information systems, physician acceptance, technology acceptance, top management support, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, system quality, health information technology
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Female, Hospital Information Systems, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Perception, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Models, Statistical, Self Efficacy
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