CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 586Technology Adoption and User BehaviourElectronic Health Records SystemsHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

A Systematic Review of Patient Acceptance of Consumer Health Information Technology

Open access
Or, C. K. L., Karsh, B.-T.·2009·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
DOI 10.1197/jamia.m2888PMC PMC2705259
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A systematic literature review was performed to identify variables promoting consumer health information technology (CHIT) acceptance among patients. The electronic bibliographic databases Web of Science, Business Source Elite, CINAHL, Communication and Mass Media Complete, MEDLINE, PsycArticles, and PsycInfo were searched. A cited reference search of articles meeting the inclusion criteria was also conducted to reduce misses. Fifty-two articles met the selection criteria. Among them, 94 different variables were tested for associations with acceptance. Most of those tested (71%) were patient factors, including sociodemographic characteristics, health- and treatment-related variables, and prior experience or exposure to computer/health technology. Only ten variables were related to human-technology interaction; 16 were organizational factors; and one was related to the environment. In total, 62 (66%) were found to predict acceptance in at least one study. Existing literature focused largely on patient-related factors. No studies examined the impact of social and task factors on acceptance, and few tested the effects of organizational or environmental factors on acceptance. Future research guided by technology acceptance theories should fill those gaps to improve our understanding of patient CHIT acceptance, which in turn could lead to better CHIT design and implementation.

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 · 10.1197/jamia.m2888

Cites

150 of 150 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • Existing literature on patients' perspectives on remote health care has explored sociodemographic and clinical factors with less attention paid to individual viewpoints or system influences.

    “Existing literature on patients’ perspectives on remote health care has explored sociodemographic and clinical factors with less attention paid to individual viewpoints or system influences (human-technology, organisational, social, task and environmental factors [18]).”

    From 'I didn't know what to expect': Exploring patient perspectives to identify targets for change to improve telephone-delivered psychological interventions (2020) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Discussion says studies of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology focused largely on sociodemographic, health, and treatment-related variables, while examining fewer human–technology, organisational, and environmental factors and no task or social factors. It also says few studies examined perceived usefulness or ease of use, supporting the point about individual viewpoints. The review concerns acceptance of consumer health information technology, however, not patients’ perspectives on remote health care generally. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [25]Brennan PF, Safran C. Empowered consumersIn: Lewis D, Eysenbach G, Kukafka R, Stavri PZ, Jimison H, editors. Consumer Health Informatics: Informing Consumers and Improving Health Care. Springer; 2005. pp. 8-21.
  2. [28]Korniewicz D, El-Masri M. Challenges and Adverse events in the homeIn: Bogner MS, editor. Misadventures in Health Care. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004. pp. 145-165.
  3. [41]Karsh B, Holden RJ. New technology implementation in health careIn: Carayon P, editor. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care and Patient Safety. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007. pp. 393-410.
  4. [127]Cobb AT, Wooten KC, Folger R. Justice in the making: toward understanding the theory and practice of justice in organizational change and developmentIn: Pasmore WA, Woodman RW, editors. Research in Organizational Change and Development. . Vol 8. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1995. pp. 243-295.
  5. [131]Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc 1991;50(2):179-211. [Google Scholar]
  6. [144]Czaja SJ, Lee CC. The internet and older adults: Design challenges and opportunitiesIn: Charness N, Park DC, Sabel BA, editors. Communication, Technology and Aging: Opportunities and Challenges for the Future. New York: Springer, Publishing, Co; 2001. pp. 60-81.
  7. [146]Rogers WA, Badre AN. The Web user. part 2. Older adults. In: Badre AN, editor. Shaping Web Usability: Interaction Design in Context. Boston: Addison-Wesley; 2002. pp. 91-108.
  8. [150]Fisk AD, Rogers WA. Health care of older adults: The promise of human factors researchIn: Rogers WA, Fisk AD, editors. Human Factors Interventions for the Health Care of Older Adults. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001. pp. 1-12.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Or, C. K. L., & Karsh, B.-T.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Karsh, B.-T.
ORCID
Or, C. K. L.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2009-07-01
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
550-560
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
DOI
10.1197/jamia.m2888
PMC
PMC2705259
OpenAlex
W2141864630
Cited by
586
References
150
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 20
FWCI
3.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Public Health Service (NLM-LM 6249)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM006249)
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
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
patient acceptance, technology acceptance, patient factors, sociodemographic factors, prior computer experience, human-technology interaction, organizational factors, technology acceptance theory, health technology design
MeSH terms
Attitude to Computers, Computer Literacy, Humans, Information Systems, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Socioeconomic Factors, Databases as Topic, Informatics, Consumer Health Information

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