CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 145Technology Adoption and User BehaviourElectronic Health Records SystemsInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Theory of user acceptance of information technologies: an examination of health care professionals

Succi, M.J., Walter, Z.D.·2003·Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers
DOI 10.1109/hicss.1999.773013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) has been developed to explain user acceptance of new information technologies. Empirical studies of this and other models however, have based their conclusions on surveys of middle managers or MBA students. Given strong differences between middle managers or MBAs and physicians, we argue that these models may not predict the attitudes of physicians towards new IT very well. Therefore, we propose to extend TAM by adding a new dimension of perceived usefulness: perceived usefulness towards professional status. Our paper suggests strategies that health care decision makers may take to influence physicians' attitudes in a positive way.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/hicss.1999.773013

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Physicians and other health care providers differ from users of IT in other TAM studies, and the general health care context differs from the industries where TAM originated.

    “Those in health care who advocate the use of TAM commonly point out how different physicians and other health care providers are from the users of IT in other studies of TAM, and how the general health care context differs from that of the industries where TAM originated [30, 32, 58, 61, 96, 98, 100].”

    From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [61]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Succi, M. J., & Walter, Z. D.
Affiliations
University of Connecticut (US)
ORCID
Walter, Z.D.
Venue
Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers
Publisher
IEEE Comput. Soc
Published
2003-01-20
Pages
7
ISSN
1530-1605 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/hicss.1999.773013
OpenAlex
W1484018636
Cited by
145
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 14
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (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 › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
technology acceptance model, healthcare workers, physicians, perceived usefulness, professional status, technology adoption, healthcare decision-making

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