Cited by 1,043Electronic Health Records SystemsPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Adoption of Electronic Health Records in the Presence of Privacy Concerns: The Elaboration Likelihood Model and Individual Persuasion1

Angst, Corey M., Agarwal, Ritu·2009·MIS Quarterly

Abstract

Within the emerging context of the digitization of health care, electronic health records (EHRs) constitute a significant technological advance in the way medical information is stored, communicated, and processed by the multiple parties involved in health care delivery. However, in spite of the anticipated value potential of this technology, there is widespread concern that consumer privacy issues may impede its diffusion. In this study, we pose the question: Can individuals be persuaded to change their attitudes and opt-in behavioral intentions toward EHRs, and allow their medical information to be digitized even in the presence of significant privacy concerns? To investigate this question, we integrate an individual’s concern for information privacy (CFIP) with the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) to examine attitude change and likelihood of opting-in to an EHR system. We theorize that issue involvement and argument framing interact to influence attitude change, and that concern for information privacy further moderates the effects of these variables. We also propose that likelihood of adoption is driven by concern for information privacy and attitude. We test our predictions using an experiment with 366 subjects where we manipulate the framing of the arguments supporting EHRs. We find that an individual’s CFIP interacts with argument framing and issue involvement to affect attitudes toward the use of EHRs. In addition, results suggest that attitude toward EHR use and CF…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/20650295

Cites

17 of 17 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Angst, C. M., & Agarwal, R.
Affiliations
  • Department of Management, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, U.S.A.
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2009-06-01
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
339-370
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
OpenAlex
W2146217571
Cited by
1,043
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 87 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 87 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 79 · 2015: 74 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 36
FWCI
81.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
electronic health records, health information privacy, elaboration likelihood model, attitude change, issue involvement, technology adoption

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