The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Testing the technology acceptance model for evaluating healthcare professionals’ intention to use an adverse event reporting system
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many healthcare organizations have implemented adverse event reporting systems in the hope of learning from experience to prevent adverse events and medical errors. However, a number of these applications have failed or not been implemented as predicted. OBJECTIVE: This study presents an extended technology acceptance model that integrates variables connoting trust and management support into the model to investigate what determines acceptance of adverse event reporting systems by healthcare professionals. METHOD: The proposed model was empirically tested using data collected from a survey in the hospital environment. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to examine the reliability and validity of the measurement model, and a structural equation modeling technique was used to evaluate the causal model. RESULTS: The results indicated that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, subjective norm, and trust had a significant effect on a professional's intention to use an adverse event reporting system. Among them, subjective norm had the most contribution (total effect). Perceived ease of use and subjective norm also had a direct effect on perceived usefulness and trust, respectively. Management support had a direct effect on perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and subjective norm. CONCLUSION: The proposed model provides a means to understand what factors determine the behavioral intention of healthcare professionals to use an adverse event reporting system and how this may affect future use. In addition, understanding the factors contributing to behavioral intent may potentially be used in advance of system development to predict reporting systems acceptance.
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
“trust, as it influences users’ intention to use health information systems [20]”
From Factors Affecting User’s Behavioral Intention and Use of a Mobile-Phone-Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia: A Small-Scale UTAUT Analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“This is also the case for telemedicine, where trust has been found to be an important antecedent of patient acceptance [4], patients’ and healthy persons’ thoughts on the usefulness of a personal health record [5], and physicians’ intention to use a telemedicine service [6].”
From Trust in telemedicine portals for rehabilitation care: an exploratory focus group study with patients and healthcare professionals (2015) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“healthcare professionals’ trust in an adverse event reporting system was found to be influenced by the subjective norm [6].”
From Trust in telemedicine portals for rehabilitation care: an exploratory focus group study with patients and healthcare professionals (2015) · cites this paper as [6]
Citations
Cites
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
On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/bf02723327 · Cited by 26,163
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Institute of Medicine (2000) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/9728 · Cited by 14,390
Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605 · cited 1×
“Reporting will occur only if practitioners feel professionally comfortable and legally safe in reporting and view it as a culturally accepted activity within the healthcare community [13–16].”
BackgroundWall, A. (2000) · British Journal of Healthcare Management · doi:10.12968/bjhc.2000.6.9.19311 · Cited by 5,912
Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology
Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y. K., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.1999.11518247 · Cited by 1,951
Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model1
Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P. B., & Cavaye, A. (1997) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249498 · Cited by 1,711
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Investigating the Importance of Trust on Adopting an Autonomous Vehicle
Choi, J. K., & Ji, Y. G. (2015) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1070549 · Cited by 1,269
A Systematic Review of the Technology Acceptance Model in Health Informatics
Rahimi, B., Nadri, H., Lotfnezhad Afshar, H., & Timpka, T. (2018) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1668091 · Cited by 688
Maillet, É., Mathieu, L., & Sicotte, C. (2014) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.09.004 · Cited by 367
Chow, M. C. M., Herold, D. K., Choo, T.-M., & Chan, K. (2012) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.011 · Cited by 340
Metadata
- Authors
- Wu, J.-H., Shen, W.-S., Lin, L.-M., Greenes, R. A., & Bates, D. W.
- Affiliations
- National Sun Yat-sen University (TW)
- Meiho University (TW)
- Arizona State University (US)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Greenes, R. A.
- Venue
- International Journal for Quality in Health Care
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-12-11
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-129
- ISSN
- 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3677
- OpenAlex
- W2128504617
- Cited by
- 235
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 15.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal for Quality in Health Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- technology acceptance model, adverse event reporting system, healthcare workers, behavioral intention, trust, management support, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, subjective norms, medical errors, hospital safety
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Confidentiality, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Taiwan, Organizational Culture, Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems, Intention, Trust
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
