The USE IT-adoption-model to Predict and Evaluate Adoption of Information and Communication Technology in Healthcare^[*]

Summary

Background and Objective: The USE IT-model integrates theories about adoption and diffusion of innovations and is suitable to predict and evaluate the success of an information system from a user’s perspective. The USE IT-model consists of four determinants: relevance, requirements, resources and resistance, which are measured at the macro-level (organizational), and at the micro-level (individual). After applying the USE IT approach in several researches we evaluated and updated the USE IT-model.

Methods: We used the USE IT-model in ten case studies in healthcare and compared the results of the studies with the determinants and dimensions of the USE IT-model.

Results: The quality of the implementation process is part of the innovation process- dimension and therefore relocated as a dimension of macro-resistance. The improvements and value in the relevance determinant are made more concrete by quality, efficiency, effectiveness, and task support. The dimensions of micro-resistance are reduced, and the dimension negative consequences is added. Also the dimensions of macro- and micro-requirements are made more specific to express the importance of information quality, availability and accessibility.

Discussion and Conclusion: The research resulted in the updated USE IT-adoption-model to predict and evaluate the adoption of information systems in healthcare. The structure and determinants of the original USE IT-model with a distinction between the macro- and micro-level remained unchanged.

Keywords

Adoption model - information and communication technology - healthcare - electronic patient record - evaluation

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

• References

• 1 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.
• 2 Michel-Verkerke MB. Evaluation of the USE IT-questionnaire for evaluation of the adoption of Electronic Patient Records by healthcare professionals. Methods Inf Med 2013; 52: 189-198.
• 3 Katsma CP, Spil TAM. The adoption of personalized music services - Combining qualitative and quantitative research. In: America’s Conference on Information Systems. Lima, Peru: 2010.
• 4 Rogers EM. Diffusions of innovations. New York: The Free Press; 1995.
• 5 Schuring RW, Spil TAM. Relevance and Micro-Relevance for the professionals as determinants of IT diffusion and IT-use in healthcare. In: ERP & Datawarehousing in organizations: issues and challenges Grant G. editor Hershey: IRM Press; 2003.
• 6 Definition of innovation (cited July 10, 2012). Available from: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/innovate.
• 7 Saarinen T, Sääksjärvi M. Process and product success in information systems development. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1992; 1 (05) 266-277.
• 8 Lewin K. (ed). Field theory in social science. Selected theoretical papers. London: Dorwin Cartwright; 1952.
• 9 Goodhue DL. Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Management Science 1995; 41 (12) 1827-1844.
• 10 Larsen TJ. Information Systems Innovation: A Framework for Research and Practice, in Information Systems Innovation and Diffusion: Issues and Directions Larsen TJ, McGuire E. editors. 1998. Hershey, USA: Idea Group Publishing; 411-434.
• 11 Leavitt HJ. Applied organisational change in industry: structural technological and humanistic approaches. In: Handbook of Organizations March JG. editor. Chicago: Rand-McNally; 1965: 1144-1170.
• 12 Pijl GJ. v. d Measuring the strategic dimensions of the quality of information. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1994; 3 (03) 179-190.
• 13 Saracevic T. Relevance: A review of and framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1975; 26 (06) 321-343.
• 14 Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 1989. (September) 319-340.
• 15 DeLone WH, McLean ER. Information Systems Success Revisited. In: 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Hawaii: 2002.
• 16 Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences 2008; 39 (02) 273-315.
• 17 Wissema JG. Angst om te veranderen?. Een mythe! Assen: Van Gorcum; 1987.
• 18 Offenbeek M v, Koopman P. Interaction and decision making in project teams. In: Handbook of Work Group Psychology. West MA. editor. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 1996: 159-187.
• 19 Metselaar EE, Kolk JM vd, Wortelboer FQC. Werken aan veranderingsbereidheid (in Dutch). In: Handboek effectief opleiden 1996: 135-158.
• 20 Pare G, Elam J. Physicians’ acceptance of clinical information systems: an empirical look at attitudes expectations and skills. International journal of Healthcare Technology and Management 1999; 1 (01) 46-61.
• 21 Kotter JP, Schlesinger LA. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review 1979. (March-April) 106-113.
• 22 Wieringa RJ. Requirements Engineering: Frameworks for Understanding. Chichester: Wiley; 2001.
• 23 Mumford E. Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis. London: MacMillan; 1995.
• 24 Walley P, Davies C. Implementing IT in NHS Hospitals - Internal barriers to Technological Advancement. In: Proceedings of the First Hospital of the Future Conference, Enschede. The Netherlands: 2001.
• 25 Brender J, McNair P. User requirements specifications: a hierarchical structure covering strategical, tactical and operational requirements. Int J Med Inform 2001; 64 (2-3) 83-98.
• 26 Beuscart-Zéphir MC. et al. Cognitive evaluation: How to assess the usability of information technology in healthcare. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 1997; 54: 19-28.
• 27 Ansoff I. Corporate Strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1965.
• 28 Iivari J, Koskela E. The PIOCO model for IS design. MIS Quarterly 1987. (September) 400-417.
• 29 Salmela H. From information systems quality to sustainable business quality. Information and Software Technology 1997; 39: 819-825.
• 30 Michel-Verkerke MB. What makes doctors use the Electronic Patient Record? Master Thesis. Enschede: University of Twente; 2003.
• 31 Michel-Verkerke MB, Schuring RW, Spil TAM. USE IT to Create Patient Relation Management for Multiple Sclerosis Patients. In: Issues and Trends in Technology and Human Interaction Stahl BC. editor. Hershey PA, USA: IRM Press; 2007: 285-305.
• 32 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.
• 33 Michel-Verkerke MB. Nursing Information System: a relevant substitute of the paper nursing record. In: MIE 2011. Oslo, Norway: 2011.
• 34 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.
• 35 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.
• 36 Michel-Verkerke MB, Hoogeboom AMGM. ECD extramuraal: betere communicatie, maar minder contact; onderzoeksverslag van de nulmeting voor de invoering van het Elektronisch Cliënten Dossier in de extramurale zorg. Saxion University of Applied Sciences; Enschede: 2012.
• 37 Michel-Verkerke MB, Schuring RW, Harten WH v. Needs, requirements, interests and impact of integrated wireless ICT in care. Freeband Telecare. Vol. Deliverable 2.2. 2003. Enschede: University of Twente;
• 38 Michel-Verkerke MB. Information and communication technology support for stroke care: the relevance dilemma. 2012.
• 39 Spil TAM. et al. Success of IT based innovation in healthcare: the art of implementation and use of an electronic patient record. In: International Conference on the Management of Healthcare & Medical Technology. Aalborg, Denmark: 2005.
• 40 Albers EF, Spil TAM. Adoption of electronic health records on the brink of a breakthrough? In: IRIS32 Information research seminar in Scandinavia. Molde, Norway: 2009.
• 41 Stepankova O, Engova D. Professional Comptence and Computer Literacy in e-age, Focus on Healthcare. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (03) 300-304.
• 42 Dent EB, Goldberg SG. Challenging "Resistance to Change”. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 1999; 35 (01) 25-41.
• 43 Yu P, Hailey D, Li HC. Caregivers’ acceptance of electronic documentation in nursing homes. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2008; 14 (05) 261-265.
• 44 Lapointe L, Rivard S. A Mulitlevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation. MIS Quarterly 2005; 29 (03) 461-491.
• 45 Chau PYK, Hu PJ-H. Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Information & Management 2002; 39: 15
• 46 Ammenwerth E, Iller C, Mahler C. IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology and individuals: a fit framework and a case study. BMC Medical Informatics & Decision Making 2006. 6 (3)
• 47 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.
• 48 Wills MJ, El-Gayar OF, Sarnikar S. Beyond Meaningful Use: A Model for Evaluating Electronic Health Record Success. In: 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences -2011. IEEE; Hawaii, USA: 2011.
• 49 Thornett AM. Computer decision support systems in general practice. International Jounal of Information Management 2001; 21: 39-47.
• 50 Gagnon M-P. et al. Using a Modified Technology Acceptance Model to Evaluate Healthcare Professionals’ Adoption of a New Telemonitoring System. TELEMEDICINE and e-HEALTH 2012; 18 (01) 6
• 51 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
• 52 Yin RK. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Fourth Edition. Applied Social Research Methods Series. Vol. 5. Bickman L, Rog DJ, editors. Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications; 2009.
• 53 Lu C-H, Hsiaom JL, Chen R-F. Factors determining nurse acceptance of hospital information systems. Computers, Informatics, Nursing 2012; 30 (05) 257-264.