Evaluation of the USE IT-questionnaire for the Evaluation of the Adoption of Electronic Patient Records by Healthcare Professionals^[*]

Summary

Background: A combined quantitative and qualitative socio-technical approach is applied in two evaluation studies of electronic patient records (EPR). In these studies the focus was on factors influencing the adoption of the EPR by care providers.

Objective: The research approach is based on the USE IT-model. In addition to the USE IT-interview model, the USE IT-questionnaire is presented and evaluated in order to pre sent a valid and useful integrated approach for the evaluation of IT-adoption in healthcare.

Methods: The USE IT-questionnaire was evaluated by applying a principal component analysis of the quantitative results in two cases (n = 222), and by comparison of the resulting factors with the determinants of the USE IT-model.

Results: The factor analysis of the USE IT-questionnaire resulted in six valid factors: 1. Task support satisfaction, 2. Interface satisfaction, 3. Compatibility, 4. Collaboration, 5. Learnability, and 6. Accessibility. The questions about resources did not combine into a factor.

Conclusion: The detailed questions of the questionnaire lead to decomposition of the constructs Task support satisfaction and Ease of use into factors. The construct Task support satisfaction which was supposed to measure relevance was decomposed in two factors measuring relevance and two factors measuring micro-requirements.

Keywords

Electronic health records - qualitative evaluation - quantitative evaluation - socio-technical research

^* Supplemental material published on our website www.methods-online.com

• References

• 1 Gartner. CPR (Computer-Based Patient Record). (cited July 12, 2012). Available from. http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/cpr-computer-based-patient-record/.
• 2 Venkatesh V, Zhang X, Sykes TA. “Doctors Do Too Little Technology”: A Longitudinal Field Study of an Electronic Healthcare System Implementation. Information Systems Research 2011; 22: 3
• 3 Yusof MM. et al An evaluation framework for Health Information Systems: human, organization and technology-fit factors (HOT-fit). Int J Med Inform 2008; 77: 386-398.
• 4 DeLone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems 2003; 19 (04) 9-30.
• 5 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.
• 6 Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science 2000; 46 (02) 186-204.
• 7 Rogers EM. Diffusions of innovations. New York: The Free Press; 1995.
• 8 Spil TAM, Schuring RW. Chapter XI: USE IT Interview Protocol, in E-Health Systems Diffusion and Use. Spil TAM, Schuring RW. editors Hershey: Idea Group Publishing; 2006: 192-196.
• 9 Schuring RW, Spil TAM. Relevance and Micro-Relevance for the professionals as determinants of IT diffusion and IT-use in healthcare, in ERP and Datawarehousing in organizations: issues and challenges. Grant G. editor Hershey: IRM Press; 2003.
• 10 Saarinen T, Sääksjärvi M. Process and product success in information systems development. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1992; 1 (05) 266-277.
• 11 Oxford Dictionaries. Definition of innovate (cited July 10, 2012). Available from. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/innovate.
• 12 Spil TAM, Schuring RW, Michel-Verkerke MB. Chapter IX: USE IT: The Theoretical Framework Tested on an Electronic Prescription System for General Practitioners, in E-health Systems Diffusion and Use: The Innovation, the User and the USE IT Model. Spil TAM, Schuring RW. editors Hershey, USA: Idea Group Publishing; 2006: 147-177.
• 13 Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989. (September) 319-340.
• 14 DeLone WH, McLean ER. Information Systems Success Revisited. In: 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii: 2002.
• 15 Chismar WG, Wiley-Patton S. Does the Extended Technology Acceptance Model Apply to Physicians?. In: 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii: 2003.
• 16 Garrity EJ, Sanders GL. editors Dimensions of information success, in Information Systems Success Measurement. Hershey, USA: Idea Group Publishing; 1998: 13-45.
• 17 Schuring RW, Spil TAM. Explaining plateaued diffusion by combining the user-IT-success factors (USIT) and adopter categories: the case of electronic prescription systems for general practitioners. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management. 2002; 4: 303-318.
• 18 Nielsen J. Usability engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann; 1993.
• 19 Schuring RW, Spil TAM. Relevance as a major driver of Innovation diffusion of ICT in Healthcare organisations. In: Proceedings of the Hospital of the Future: 1st International Conference on Management of Healthcare and Medical Technology. University of Twente; Enschede: 2001.
• 20 Hackl WO, Hoerbst A, Ammenwerth E. “Why the Hell Do We Need Electronic Health Records?” EHR Acceptance among Physicians in Private Practice in Austria: A Qualitative Study. Methods Inf Med 2011; 50: 9
• 21 Bleich HL, Slack WV. Reflections on electronic medical records: When doctors will use them and when they will not. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79: 1-4.
• 22 Michel-Verkerke MB, Schuring RW, Spil TAM. Chapter X: The USE IT Model Case Studies: IT Perceptions in the Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatism and Stroke Healthcare Chains, in E-health Systems Diffusion and Use: The Innovation, the User and the USE IT Model. Spil TAM, Schuring RW. editors Hershey, USA: Idea Group Publishing; 2006: 177-191.
• 23 Chau PYK, Hu PJ-H. Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Information and Management 2002; 39: 15
• 24 Spil TAM. et al Towards a better understanding of the e-health user: comparing USE IT and Requirements study for an Electronic Patient Record In: 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, Hawaii, USA: 2005.
• 25 Babbie E. The Practice of Social Research. Seventh ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company; 1995.
• 26 Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences 2008; 39 (02) 273-315.
• 27 Michel-Verkerke MB. What makes doctors use the Electronic Patient Record? Master Thesis. Enschede: University of Twente; 2003.
• 28 Michel-Verkerke MB, Hoogeboom AMGM. Evaluation of an Electronic Patient Record in a Nursing Home: One Size Fits All?. In: The 45th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Maui, Hawaii: Conference Publishing Services, IEEE; 2012.
• 29 Michel-Verkerke MB. Nursing Information System: a relevant substitute of the paper nursing record. In: MIE 2011. Oslo, Norway: 2011.
• 30 Michel-Verkerke MB. Information Quality of a Nursing Information System depends on the nurses: a combined quantitative and qualitative evaluation. Int J Med Inform 2012; 81: 662-673.
• 31 Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Second ed. ISM introducing statistical methods. Wright DB. (ed) London: SAGE Publications; 2005.
• 32 Dix A. et al Human-computer interaction. Third ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited; 2004.
• 33 McGinn CA. et al Comparison of user groups’ perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review. BMC Medicine 2011; 9 (46) 10
• 34 Bundschuh BB. et al Quality of human-computer interaction - results of a national usability survey of hospital-IT in Germany. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2011; 11 (69) 1-12.
• 35 Kaplan B, Duchon D. Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Information Systems Research: A Case Study. MIS Quarterly 1988; 12 (04) 16
• 36 Boonstra A, Broekhuis M. Barriers to the acceptance of electronic medical records by physicians from systematic review to taxonomy and interventions. BMC Health Services Research 2010; 10: 17