The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A reliable tool for assessment of acceptance of e-consultation service in hospitals: the modified e-consultation Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Innovative approaches like e-consultation services are critical for improving access to healthcare and promoting equity, particularly in under-resourced settings. Despite their growing prominence, limited tools are available to assess healthcare professionals' acceptance and satisfaction with these services. This study aimed to validate the modified e-consultation TAM questionnaire as a reliable instrument for assessing physicians' perspectives on e-consultation service. METHODS: This study focuses exclusively on physicians receiving (not providing) e-consultation service within the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population. The tool used for assessing their acceptance of the service consists of three sections: demographic data, items assessing perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU) of e-consultation, and questions addressing physicians' satisfaction, challenges, and suggestions to improve e-consultation services. The questionnaire was subjected to thorough validation, including face validity evaluated by an expert panel and construct validity which was assessed through factor analysis. RESULTS: The modified e-consultation TAM questionnaire demonstrated excellent internal reliability, with Cronbach's alpha coefficient exceeding 0.92 for both PU and PEU. Exploratory factor analysis identified two domains, PU and PEU, explaining 81.17% of the variance, with factor loadings ranging from 0.661 to 0.912. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the two-factor model, with standardized factor loadings between 0.80 and 0.95, a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.95, and a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.084. CONCLUSION: The modified e-consultation TAM questionnaire proves to be a reliable and valid tool for evaluating physicians' acceptance of and satisfaction with e-consultation service. This tool offers potential for future research and practical applications, providing valuable insights to improve the implementation of e-consultation services and inform strategies for advancing healthcare access and equity globally.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“the questionnaire items were not newly developed in the present study but were adapted from established technology acceptance and digital health acceptance studies [49,119].”
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
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
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
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159 · cited 2×
“Later versions (TAM3, UTAUT) are more complex and comprehensive, suitable for diverse contexts [16, 27, 31, 32].”
Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00143-4 · Cited by 4,250
Telehealth for global emergencies: Implications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Smith, A. C., Thomas, E., Snoswell, C. L., Haydon, H., Mehrotra, A., Clemensen, J., & Caffery, L. J. (2020) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x20916567 · Cited by 1,828
Telemedicine for Healthcare: Capabilities, Features, Barriers, and Applications
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Singh, R. P., & Suman, R. (2021) · Sensors International · doi:10.1016/j.sintl.2021.100117 · Cited by 1,638
Effects of Questionnaire Length on Participation and Indicators of Response Quality in a Web Survey
Galešić, M., & Bošnjak, M. (2009) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfp031 · Cited by 1,324
Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. (2002) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.11045699 · Cited by 707
Use of Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review
Doraiswamy, S., Abraham, A., Mamtani, R., & Cheema, S. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/24087 · Cited by 698
Vimalananda, V. G., Gupte, G., Seraj, S. M., Orlander, J., Berlowitz, D., Fincke, B. G., & Simon, S. R. (2015) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x15582108 · Cited by 437
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Kamal E, Aboelsaad IAF, El-Maradny YA, Ashmawy R, Gawish N, Selem AK, et al. An insight into the implementation, utilization, and evaluation of telemedicine e-consultation services in Egypt. Health Policy Techno. 2024;13(6): 100951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2023.100951. · DOI
- Almutairi A, Alharbi S. Primary care physicians, perception and acceptance of telehealth in Buraidah, Saudi Arabia. J Res Medi Dent Sci. 2021;9(9):154–9. https://www.jrmds.in/articles/primary-care-physicians-perception-and-acceptance-of-telehealth-in-buraidah-saudi-arabia.pdf
- Lewis JR. Comparison of Four TAM Item Formats: effect of response option labels and order. J User Exp. 2019;14(4):224–36. https://uxpajournal.org/tam-formats-effect-response-labels-order/
- Brown JD. The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate. JALT Testing & Eval SIG Newsletter. 2002;6(1):17–8. https://teval.jalt.org/test/PDF/Brown13.pdf
- Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci. 2000;46(2):186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc46218611926. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bhadila, G. Y., Bahdila, D., Saber, N. O., & Alyafi, D. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1754136 · Cited by 2
Man, S. S., Wu, X., Chiu, K. T., Ma, Q., & Chan, A. H. S. (2026) · Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2026.2716566 · Cited by 1
Zhou, Z., Zhou, Y., Ouyang, B., Man, S. S., & Chan, A. H. S. (2026) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare14131978
“Fourth, the questionnaire items were not newly developed in the present study but were adapted from established technology acceptance and digital health acceptance studies [49,119].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Ashmawy, R., Zeina, S., Kamal, E., Shelbaya, K., Gawish, N., Sharaf, S., Redwan, E. M., & Mehanna, A.
- Affiliations
- Ministry of Health and Population (EG)
- National Research Centre (EG)
- National Heart Institute (EG)
- King Abdulaziz University (SA)
- Alexandria University (EG)
- Corresponding author
- Ashmawy, Rasha
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association
- Published
- 2025-04-22
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6-6
- ISSN
- 0013-2446 (ISSN-L)
- 2090-262X
- PMC
- PMC12014876
- OpenAlex
- W4409666483
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3
- FWCI
- 2.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Ministry of Health and Population
- Alexandria University
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- e-consultation, technology acceptance model, questionnaire validation, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, physician satisfaction, physician acceptance
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
