Perceptions of chronically ill and healthy consumers about electronic personal health records: a comparative empirical investigation
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To develop a model of consumer perceptions of electronic personal health records (PHRs) and validate it in a comparative study between consumers who report having a chronic illness and those who report being well. Materials and methods: A model of PHR use motivators and barriers was built and tested through a national survey across Canada. Data were collected from 800 individuals, 18 years or older. Half reported having a chronic illness or disability and half reported being well. Analyses were performed with structural equation modelling techniques. Results: A total of 389 answers from chronically ill and 383 from well participants were collected. Perceived usefulness was the key explanation of the intention to use PHRs for both ill and well people (total effect of 0.601 and 0.565, respectively) followed by security, privacy and trust in PHRs (total effect of 0.377 and 0.479, respectively). Conversely, computer anxiety was perceived as a significant barrier (total effect of −0.327 for ill individuals and −0.212 for well individuals). Discussion: The model proposed was appropriate in explaining key consumer positive and negative perceptions on electronic PHR use. We found little difference in perceptions of electronic PHRs between chronically ill and well individuals, although self-reporting their health status might have influenced the results. Conclusions: To increase the adoption rate of electronic PHRs among both chronically ill and well consumers it is necessary to reinforce consumer perceptions of the usefulness of and trust in these eHealth technologies while mitigating their anxieties about computer use in general.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 telemedicine, trust has been found to be an important antecedent of patient acceptance, patients' and healthy persons' thoughts on the usefulness of a personal health record, and physicians' intention to use a telemedicine service.
“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 [5]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 44
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [35]Thomas RD Lu IRR Cedzynski M Partial least squares: a critical review and a potential alternative. 2005 Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.86.1719&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 28 Oct 2013). (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6Ki8UyHTh).
- Authors
- Cocosila, M., & Archer, N.
- Affiliations
- Athabasca University (CA)
- McMaster University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Cocosila, Mihail
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2014-07
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e005304
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4120338
- OpenAlex
- W2165912169
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 4.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
- Keywords
- electronic personal health records, consumer perception, chronic disease, perceived usefulness, privacy and security, computer anxiety, digital health adoption, health information technology adoption
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Attitude, Chronic Disease, Consumer Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Motivation, Empirical Research, Young Adult, Electronic Health Records
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