↓ Skip to main content

The intention to use an electronic health record and its antecedents among three different categories of clinical staff

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
Title
The intention to use an electronic health record and its antecedents among three different categories of clinical staff
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3022-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudio Vitari, Roxana Ologeanu-Taddei

Abstract

Like other sectors, the healthcare sector has to deal with the issue of users' acceptance of IT. In healthcare, different factors affecting healthcare professionals' acceptance of software applications have been investigated. Unfortunately, inconsistent results have been found, maybe because the different studies focused on different IT and occupational groups. Consequently, more studies are needed to investigate these implications for recent technology, such as Electronic Health Records (EHR). Given these findings in the existing literature, we pose the following research question: "To what extent do the different categories of clinical staff (physicians, paraprofessionals and administrative personnel) influence the intention to use an EHR and its antecedents?" To answer this research question we develop a research model that we empirically tested via a survey, including the following variables: intention to use, ease of use, usefulness, anxiety, self-efficacy, trust, misfit and data security. Our purpose is to clarify the possible differences existing between different staff categories. For the entire personnel, all the hypotheses are confirmed: anxiety, self-efficacy, trust influence ease of use; ease of use, misfit, self-efficacy, data security impact usefulness; usefulness and ease of use contribute to intention to use the EHR. They are also all confirmed for physicians, residents, carers and nurses but not for secretaries and assistants. Secretaries' and assistants' perception of the ease of use of EHR does not influence their intention to use it and they could not be influenced by self-efficacy in the development of their perception of the ease of use of EHR. These results may be explained by the fact that secretaries, unlike physicians and nurses, have to follow rules and procedures for their work, including working with EHR. They have less professional autonomy than healthcare professionals and no medical responsibility. This result is also in line with previous literature highlighting that administrators are more motivated by the use of IT in healthcare.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 141 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Lecturer 8 6%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 56 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 20 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Psychology 7 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 57 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,591,506
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,546
of 7,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,173
of 332,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#177
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.