CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 459Electronic Health Records SystemsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology and individuals: a fit framework and a case study

Open access
Ammenwerth, Elske, Iller, Carola, Mahler, Cornelia·2006·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-6-3PMC PMC1352353
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Factors of IT adoption have largely been discussed in the literature. However, existing frameworks (such as TAM or TTF) are failing to include one important aspect, the interaction between user and task. Method: Based on a literature study and a case study, we developed the FITT framework to help analyse the socio-organisational-technical factors that influence IT adoption in a health care setting. Results: Our FITT framework (" F it between I ndividuals, T ask and T echnology") is based on the idea that IT adoption in a clinical environment depends on the fit between the attributes of the individual users (e.g. computer anxiety, motivation), attributes of the technology (e.g. usability, functionality, performance), and attributes of the clinical tasks and processes (e.g. organisation, task complexity). We used this framework in the retrospective analysis of a three-year case study, describing the adoption of a nursing documentation system in various departments in a German University Hospital. We will show how the FITT framework helped analyzing the process of IT adoption during an IT implementation: we were able to describe every found IT adoption problem with regard to the three fit dimensions, and any intervention on the fit can be described with regard to the three objects of the FITT framework (individual, task, technology). We also derive facilitators and barriers to IT adoption of clinical information systems. Conclusion: This work should support a better understanding of the reasons for IT adoption failures and therefore enable better prepared and more successful IT introduction projects. We will discuss, however, that from a more epistemological point of view, it may be difficult or even impossible to analyse the complex and interacting factors that predict success or failure of IT projects in a socio-technical environment.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6947-6-3

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Information success model by DeLone [5].
Figure 1 Information success model by DeLone [5].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Technology acceptance model (TAM) by Davis [14].
Figure 2 Technology acceptance model (TAM) by Davis [14].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Task-Technology-Fit model (TTF) by Goodhue [8], [13], [18].
Figure 3 Task-Technology-Fit model (TTF) by Goodhue [8], [13], [18].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 The FITT framework (1): IT-adoption depends on the fit between individual, task and technology.
Figure 4 The FITT framework (1): IT-adoption depends on the fit between individual, task and technology.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Planning, directing and assessment of the fit. While the fit can be managed by deliberate active interventions (e.g. by IT management), continuous external factors may influence it, too.
Figure 5 Planning, directing and assessment of the fit. While the fit can be managed by deliberate active interventions (e.g. by IT management), continuous external factors may influence it, too.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 The FITT framework (2): Deliberate interventions and external influences will affect attributes of task, technology and fit, thereby indirectly affecting the three fit dimensions.
Figure 6 The FITT framework (2): Deliberate interventions and external influences will affect attributes of task, technology and fit, thereby indirectly affecting the three fit dimensions.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Answer to the question "Do you want to continue working with the nursing documentation system" on four wards (n = 56 for all 4 wards; 1 = no, 4 = yes; indicated is the mean of all answers). The 2nd questionnaire was applied around 3 month after IT introduction (except Ward B), the 3rd questionnaire at least 6 months after the 2nd.
Figure 7 Answer to the question "Do you want to continue working with the nursing documentation system" on four wards (n = 56 for all 4 wards; 1 = no, 4 = yes; indicated is the mean of all answers). The 2nd questionnaire was applied around 3 month after IT introduction (except Ward B), the 3rd questionnaire at least 6 months after the 2nd.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Analysis of the Fit on a dermatologic ward shortly after introduction of the computer-based documentation system. An arrow indicates problems with the fit, a sun indicates an uncomplicated fit.
Figure 8 Analysis of the Fit on a dermatologic ward shortly after introduction of the computer-based documentation system. An arrow indicates problems with the fit, a sun indicates an uncomplicated fit.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Analysis of the Fit on a paediatric ward shortly after introduction of the computer-based documentation system. One arrow indicates smaller problems with the fit, two arrows larger problems.
Figure 9 Analysis of the Fit on a paediatric ward shortly after introduction of the computer-based documentation system. One arrow indicates smaller problems with the fit, two arrows larger problems.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 10 Analysis of the Fit on two psychiatric wards shortly after introduction of the computer-based documentation system. An arrow indicates problems with the fit; a sun indicates an uncomplicated fit.
Figure 10 Analysis of the Fit on two psychiatric wards shortly after introduction of the computer-based documentation system. An arrow indicates problems with the fit; a sun indicates an uncomplicated fit.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Ammenwerth E, Eichstädter R, Happek T, Haux R, Hoppe B, Kandert M, Kutscha A, Luther G, Mahler C, Mansmann U, Pohl U: Evaluation of computer-based documentation on four wards - final report (in German). 2001, Heidelberg , Dept. of Medical Informatics
  2. Ammenwerth E, Iller C, Mahler C, Kandert M, Luther G, Hoppe B, Eichstädter R: Factors influencing acceptance and adoption of a nursing documentation system: study report (in German). 2003, Innsbruck , University for Health Informatics and Technology Tyrol (UMIT)
  3. Mahler C, Ammenwerth E, Eichstädter R, Hoppe B, Mansmann U, Tautz A, Wagner A: Evaluation of computer-based nursing documentation - final report - part: documentation analysis (in German). 2002, University Hospitals of Heidelberg
  4. Ammenwerth E: Die Bewertung von Informationssystemen des Gesundheitswesens [The evaluation of health information systems]. Publication Series No 1 of UMIT. Edited by: University for Health Sciences MITHTA. 2004, Aachen , Shaker
  5. Ornstein C: California; Hospital Heeds Doctors, Suspends Use of Software: Cedars-Sinai physicians entered prescriptions and other orders in it, but called it unsafe. The Los Angeles Times. 2003, Jan 22nd, 2003:
  6. von Förster H: Prinzipien der Selbstorganisation im sozialen und betriebswirtschaftlichen Bereich. Wissen und Gewissen - Versuch einer Brücke. 1993, Frankfurt a.M. , Suhrkamp, 233-269.
  7. Ammenwerth E, Iller C, Mahler C: The interaction of task, technology and individuals - a theory of FITT. Oral Presentation at the Information Technology in Health Care Conference (ITHC 2004), Sept 13 - 14 2004, Portland Published on Proceedings CD. 2004

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 459

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ammenwerth, E., Iller, C., & Mahler, C.
Affiliations
  • UMIT TIROL - Private University for Health Sciences and Health Technology (AT)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Ammenwerth, Elske
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2006-01-09
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
3-3
ISSN
1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1472-6947-6-3
PMC
PMC1352353
OpenAlex
W1480033610
Cited by
459
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 23
FWCI
29.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
information technology adoption, clinical information systems, computer anxiety, usability, task complexity, socio-technical factors, university hospital
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Decision Making, Diffusion of Innovation, Germany, Hospital Information Systems, Hospitals, University, Humans, Medical Informatics Computing, Motivation, Task Performance and Analysis, Technology, User-Computer Interface, Organizational Culture, Organizational Case Studies, Nursing Informatics

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