User Acceptance of a Picture Archiving and Communication System

Summary

Objective: The aim of this study is to gain insight into the individual user acceptance of PACS by the radiology department staff of the Ghent University Hospital. Hereto a basic – direct effects only – form of UTAUT was assessed.

Methods: Ninety-four questionnaires were distributed and 56 usable questionnaires were returned (19 radiologists – 37 technologists). The questionnaire consisted of scales of Venkatesh et al. [13] for performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), facilitating conditions (FC), social influence (SI), self-efficacy (SE), attitude (ATT), anxiety (ANX) and behavioral intention (BI), and a scale of Moore et al. [22] to assess the perceived voluntariness of PACS-use.

Results: The reliability of all scales, except FC and voluntariness, was acceptable to good. The voluntariness scale was divided into a mandatoriness (MAN) and a voluntariness (VOL) measure. Both radiologists and technologists seem to welcome PACS, with radiologists having higher ratings on PE, EE, ATT, VOL and BI. Only PE and FC were salient for predicting BI, while EE and SI were not salient. Variance explained in behavioral intention to use PACS was 48%.

Conclusion: Both radiologists and technologists were positive towards PACS and had strong intentions to use PACS. As other healthcare professionals, they appear to make their technology acceptance decision independent from their superiors, hereby focusing on usefulness rather than on ease of use. It is also important that support is supplied. Basic UTAUT is an adequate model to assess technology acceptance in a radiological setting.

Keywords

PACS - UTAUT - technology acceptance

• References

• 1 Bramson RT, Bramson RA. Overcoming obstacles to work-changing technology such as PACS and voice recognition. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184 (06) 1727-1730.
• 2 Pare G, Trudel MC. Knowledge barriers to PACS adoption and implementation in hospitals. Int J Med Inform 2007; 76 (01) 22-33.
• 3 Taylor S, Todd PA. Understanding Information Technology Usage – A Test of Competing Models. Information Systems Research 1995; 6 (02) 144-146.
• 4 Adams DA, Nelson RR, Todd PA. Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology – A Replication. Mis Quarterly 1992; 16 (02) 227-247.
• 5 Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. Mis Quarterly 1989; 13 (03) 319-340.
• 6 Mathieson K. Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior. Information Systems Research 1991; 2 (03) 173-191.
• 7 Han S, Mustonen P, Seppanen M, Kallio M. Does Fragmentation of Working Time and Working Space Influence the Acceptance of Mobile Technology?. A Case of Finnish Physicians. TUCS; 2005 Report No.: 657.
• 8 Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User Acceptance of Computer-Technology – A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Manage Sci 1989; 35 (08) 982-1003.
• 9 Dishaw MT, Strong DM. Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management 1999; 36 (01) 9-21.
• 10 Szajna B. Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Manage Sci 1996; 42 (01) 85-92.
• 11 Venkatesh V, Speier C. Computer technology training in the workplace: A longitudinal investigation of the effect of mood. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1999; 79 (01) 1-28.
• 12 Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research 2000; 11 (04) 342-365.
• 13 Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. Mis Quarterly 2003; 27 (03) 425-478.
• 14 Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975
• 15 Ajzen I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991; 50: 179-211.
• 16 Chau PYK, Hu PJH. Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Information & Management 2002; 39 (04) 297-311.
• 17 Taylor S, Todd P. Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. Mis Quarterly 1995; 19 (04) 561-570.
• 18 Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986
• 19 Compeau DR, Higgins CA. Application of Social Cognitive Theory to Training for Computer Skills. Information Systems Research 1995; 6 (02) 118-143.
• 20 Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. J Appl Soc Psychol 1992; 22 (14) 1111-1132.
• 21 Thompson RL, Higgins CA, Howell JM. Personal Computing – Toward A Conceptual-Model of Utilization. Mis Quarterly 1991; 15 (01) 125-143.
• 22 Moore GC, Benbasat I. Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research 1991; 2 (03) 192-222.
• 23 Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York: The Free Press; 1995
• 24 Schaper LK, Pervan GP. ICT and OTs: A model of information and communication technology acceptance and utilisation by occupational therapists. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2007; 76 Supplement (01) S212-S221.
• 25 Chau PYK, Hu PJ. Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems 2002; 18 (04) 191-229.
• 26 Chau PYK, Hu PJH. Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model comparison approach. Decision Sciences 2001; 32 (04) 699-719.
• 27 Chismar WG, Wiley-Patton S. Does the extended technology acceptance model apply to physicians. HICSS; 2003. p 160a.
• 28 Hu PJ, Chau PYK, Sheng ORL, Tam KY. Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems 1999; 16 (02) 91-112.
• 29 Hulse NC, Del Fiol G, Rocha RA. Modeling endusers’ acceptance of a knowledge authoring tool. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (05) 528-535.
• 30 Pare G, Sicotte C, Jacques H. The effects of creating psychological ownership on physicians’ acceptance of clinical information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (02) 197-205.
• 31 Li JP, Rajiv K. How robust is the UTAUT instrument?. A multigroup invariance analysis in the context of acceptance and use of online community weblog systems. Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR conference on computer personnel research: Forty-four years of computer personnel research: achievements, challenges and the future; Claremont, California, USA: ACM Press; 2006. pp 183-189.
• 32 Karahanna E, Straub DW, Chervany NL. Information technology adoption across time: A crosssectional comparison of pre-adoption and postadoption beliefs. Mis Quarterly 1999; 23 (02) 183-213.
• 33 Jayasuriya R. Determinants of microcomputer technology use: implications for education and training of health staff. Int J Med Inform 1998; 50 1-3 187-194.
• 34 van Schaik P, Bettany-Saltikov JA, Warren JG. Clinical acceptance of a low-cost portable system for postural assessment. Behav Inf Technol 2002; 21 (01) 47-57.
• 35 Dillon TW, McDowell D, Salimian F, Conklin D. Perceived ease of use and usefulness of bedsidecomputer systems. Comput Nurs 1998; 16 (03) 151-156.
• 36 Henderson RD, Deane FP, Ward MJ. Occupational Differences in Computer-Related Anxiety – Implications for the Implementation of a Computerized Patient-Management Information-System. Behav Inf Technol 1995; 14 (01) 23-31.
• 37 Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994
• 38 Herche J, Engelland B. Reverse polarity items and scale unidimensionality. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1996; 24 (04) 366-374.