Health information technologies are increasingly being used to support patient self-management during the home recovery process for chronically ill homecare patients. While in theory these technologies may provide better access to information and resources to patients, thus possibly improving health outcomes, there is a risk that patients will not use the technology. As such, it is essential to understand what causes patients to accept technologies prior to implementation. Existing technology acceptance models may not apply to an elderly patient population because most models were developed studying healthy college students or healthy employees. The elderly, and specifically elderly with chronic illnesses, may accept or reject technology for reasons different from those previously identified. This study developed the patient technology acceptance model to better understand what key factors predict patient intention to use health information technologies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
2.
American Heart Association (2006). Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2006 Update. Dallas, Texas: American Heart Association.
3.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
4.
CompeauD.R.HigginsC.A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.
5.
CzajaS.J.SharitJ. (1998). Age differences in attitudes toward computers. The Journals of Gerontology, 53(5), 329–340.
6.
DavisF.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
7.
EarnestM.A.RossS.E.WittevrongelL.MooreL.A.LinC.T. (2004). Use of a patient-accessible electronic medical record in a practice for congestive heart failure: Patient and physician experiences. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11(5), 410–417.
8.
FergusonT. (2000). Online patient-helpers and physicians working together: A new partnership for high quality health care. British Medical Journal, 321(7269), 1129–1132.
9.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub.
10.
FowlesJ.B.KindA.C.CraftC.KindE.A.MandelJ.L.AdlisS. (2004). Patients' interest in reading their medical record - relation with clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and patients' approach to health care. Archives of Internal Medicine, 164(7), 793–800.
11.
GitlinL.N. (1995). Why older people accept or reject assistive technology. Generations, 19(1), 41–46.
12.
HermanovaH. (1997). New challenges in ageing: Home care. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19(4), 142–146.
13.
HsuJ.HuangJ.KinsmanJ.FiremanB.MillerR.SelbyJ.OrtizE. (2005). Use of e-health services between 1999 and 2002: A growing digital divide. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 12(2), 164–171.
14.
IgbariaM.GuimaraesT.DavisG.B. (1995). Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(4), 87–114.
15.
KaplanB.BrennanP.F. (2001). Consumer informatics supporting patients as co-producers of quality. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 8(4), 309–316.
16.
KarshB. (2004). Beyond usability for patient safety: Designing effective technology implementation systems. Quality and Safety in Healthcare, 13(5), 388–394.
17.
KaufmanD.R.PatelV.L.HillimanC.MorinP.C.PevznerJ.WeinstockR.S.GolandR.SheaS.StarrenJ. (2003). Usability in the real world: Assessing medical information technologies in patient's homes. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 36(1–2), 45–60.
18.
MeadN.VarnamR.RogersA.RolandM. (2003). What predicts patients' interest in the Internet as a health resource in primary care in England?Journal of health Services Research & Policy, 8(1), 33–39.
19.
MorrisM.G.VenkateshV.AckermanP.L. (2005). Gender and age differences in employee decisions about new technology: An extension to the theory of planned behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(1), 69–84.
20.
NosekB.A.BanajiM.R.GreenwaldA.G. (2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration website. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, Practice, 6(1), 101–115.
21.
PautlerS.E.TanJ.K.DugasG.R.PusN.FerriM.HardieR.W.ChinJ.L. (2001). Use of the internet for self-education by patients with prostate cancer. Urology, 57(2), 230–233.
22.
PetersonM.W.FretzP.C. (2003). Patient use of the Internet for information in a lung cancer clinic. CHEST, 123(2), 452–457.
23.
SherbourneC.D.HaysR.D.OrdwayL.DimatteoM.R.KravitzR.L. (1992). Antecedents of adherence to medical recommendations - results from the medical outcomes study. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(5), 447–468.
24.
StrombergA.AhlenH.FridlundB.DahlstromU. (2002). Interactive education on CD-ROM — a new tool in the education of heart failure patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 46(1), 75–81.
25.
TaylorS.ToddP.A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(1), 144–176.
26.
VenkateshV. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating perceived behavioral control, computer anxiety and enjoyment into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.
27.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
28.
VenkateshV.SpeierC.MorrisM.G. (2002). User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: Toward and integrated model. Decision Sciences, 33(2), 297–316.
29.
VuoriH. (1991). Patient satisfaction — does it matter?Quality Assurance in Health Care, 3(3), 183–189.
30.
WagnerE.H.GrovesT. (2002). Care for chronic diseases. British Medical Journal, 325(7370), 913–914.
31.
WilsonE.V.LanktonN.K. (2004). Modeling patients' acceptance of provider-delivered e-health. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11(4), 241–248.
