CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Technology Adoption and User BehaviourElectronic Health Records SystemsInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Use of online systems in clinical medical assessments: an analysis of physician acceptance of online disability evaluation systems

Horan, T.A., Tulu, B., Hilton, B., Burton, J.·2004·37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the
DOI 10.1109/hicss.2004.1265364
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In today's world of ever increasing amounts of information, hospitals and medical groups must continually find ways to manage the myriad information that is gathered on patients. This reality makes the field of medicine well suited to benefit from integrative and online information systems. However, research reveals that at times physicians resist the use of information technology (IT) in the clinical setting. This paper seeks to develop a conceptual model for physician acceptance and test this socio-work structure model using a nationwide survey of physicians (n=141) conducted by the authors. The domain focus of this study is physician acceptance of an online disability evaluation system for generating and managing medical examination reports. The survey measured whether behavioral intention to use the new system varied as a function of IT infrastructure, organizational processes relating to IT, physician experience with computer use in clinical settings, and both specific and general attitudes toward IT use in clinical settings. Survey findings suggest that each of these factors affects behavioral intention to use online disability evaluation systems, and that these factors are more important than generalized attitudes toward online systems or socio-demographic predictors. These findings suggest that work-system variables are important when considering physicians use of online systems. This extends traditional use of TAM to consider organizational factors when analyzing the acceptance decision.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/hicss.2004.1265364

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • The physician specialties covered in reviewed studies were endoscopy, pediatrics, disability care, and a mix of specialists and general practitioners.

    “The physician specialties covered were endoscopy [96], pediatrics [97], disability care [98], and some mix of specialists and general practitioners [32, 99-101].”

    From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [98]

  • Some reviewed studies did not provide formal construct definitions, although all clearly referred to the original TAM or UTAUT and probably had similar definitions.

    “Some studies did not provide formal construct definitions [32, 97, 98, 102], although all clearly referred to the original TAM or UTAUT, and probably had definitions similar to the above.”

    From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [98]

  • 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].”

    From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [98]

  • 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 [98]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Horan, T. A., Tulu, B., Hilton, B., & Burton, J.
Affiliations
Claremont Graduate University (US)
ORCID
Tulu, B.
Venue
37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2004
Pages
10 pp.
ISSN
1530-1605 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/hicss.2004.1265364
OpenAlex
W2165286499
Cited by
38
References
28
Citations by year
2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Claremont Graduate University
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
physician acceptance, technology acceptance model, intention to use, organizational factors, IT infrastructure, health information systems

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