Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2014-11
Leveraging technology adoption model for examining internet usage among physicians’ in changing Indian pharmaceutical marketing context: A structural equation modeling approach
Considering technological advancements happening all across the globe, the internet has been incorporated as an emerging medium of pharmaceutical promotion by Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India in the year 2012. In Indian pharmaceutical industry, the marketing process is only physician directed (except for “over-the-counter” drugs) and Direct to Consumer Advertising using internet or any other means of marketing communication is legally not allowed. Therefore, the knowledge about adoption and usage pattern of internet among Indian physician needs to be examined. This understanding would help the pharmaceutical marketing organizations to better promote their products over internet to the target customers, i.e. physicians. The present research describes about physicians’ technology acceptance phenomenon based on theoretical concept of technology adoption model. The structural equation model analysis highlighted relevance of technology adoption model to examine physicians’ internet adoption phenomenon in changing Indian pharmaceutical marketing context. The research also cautions that actual usage of internet by physicians and specialists should be analyzed separately for professional activities and for personal activities in order to get accurate marketing insights.
American Medical Association, USA, 1997, 1999, 2000.
2.
Canadian Medical Association, Canada, 1999.
3.
BuckleyJ. Pharmaceutical marketing – time for change. Electron J Bus Ethics Organ Stud2004; 2: 4–11.
4.
MasoodIIbrahimMHassaliM. Evolution of marketing techniques, adoption in pharmaceutical industry and related issues: a review. J Clin Diagn Res2009; 19: 42–52.
5.
OPPI Code of Pharmaceutical Practices 2012, Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India, March 2012.
6.
BhangaleV. Pharma marketing in India: opportunities, challenges and the way forward. JMM2008; 3: 205–210.
7.
RogersEM. Diffusion of innovations, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press, 1983, pp. 48–48.
8.
DillonAMorrisMUser acceptance of new information technology -- theories and models. In: WilliamsM (ed). Annual Review of Information Science and Technology1996; Vol 31. Medford, NJ: Information Today, pp. 3–32.
9.
YarbroughAKSmithTB. Technology acceptance among physicians – a new take on TAM. Med Care Res Rev2007; 6: 650–672.
10.
MastersK. For what purpose and reasons do doctors use the Internet: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform2008; 77: 4–16.
11.
MastersK. Access to and use of the Internet by South African general practitioners. Int J Med Inform2008; 77: 778–786.
12.
Ketikidis P, Dimitrovski T, Lazuras L, et al. Adoption of electronic health records (EHRs): a review of technology acceptance studies. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Health Information Management Research-ISHIMR, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, Western Bank Sheffield, UK: The University of Sheffield, 26 June–28 June 2013, pp.1–4.
13.
PatwardhanAPandeyNDhumeSM. Analysis of physicians’ technology acceptance literature in changing Indian pharmaceutical marketing context: a Markus and Robey’s causal structure approach. IJMBC2014; 2: 33–45.
14.
MarkusMLRobeyD. Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research. Manage Sci1988; 34: 583–599.
15.
RatchfordMBarnhartM. Development and validation of the technology adoption propensity (TAP) index. JBR2012; 8: 1209–1215.
16.
Davis FD. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Doctoral dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, USA, 1986.
17.
DavisFDBagozziRPWarshawPR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci1989; 8: 982–1003.
18.
DavisFD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart1989; 13: 319–340.
19.
HuPChauPLiu ShengO. Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. J Manage Inform Syst1999; 2: 91–112.
20.
VenkateshVDavisFD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci2000; 46: 186–204.
21.
Safran C, Dixon DR and Dixon BJ. Adoption of information technology enabled innovations by primary care physicians: model and questionnaire development. In: Safran C (ed.) Proceedings of the Seventeenth Symposium on Computer SCAMC Proceedings. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994, pp.631--635.
22.
Dixon DR and Stewart M. Exploring information technology adoption by family physicians: survey instrument valuation. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 2000: 185--189.
23.
ChauPYKHuP. Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach. Decis Sci2001; 4: 699–720.
24.
ChauPYKHuP. Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: an exploratory study. J Manage Inform Syst2002; 4: 191–229.
25.
Chismar W and Wiley-Patton S. Does the extended technology acceptance model apply to physicians? In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, Maryland, USA: American Medical informatics Association, 6 January–9 January 2003, pp.160–167.
26.
HanSPekkaMMattiS. Physicians’ acceptance of mobile communication technology: an exploratory study. Int J Mobile Commun2006; 2: 210–230.
27.
WalterZLopezMS. Physician acceptance of information technologies: role of perceived threat to professional autonomy. Decis Support Syst2008; 1: 206–215.
28.
OnwuegbuzieAJLeechNL. On becoming a pragmatic researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Int J Soc Res Methodol2005; 5: 375–387.
29.
ObersederMSchlegelmilchBMurphyP. Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility: scale development and validation. J Bus Ethics2014; 124: 101–115.
30.
EdwardsJRBagozziRP. On the nature and direction of the relationship between constructs and measures. Psychol Methods2000; 5: 155–174.
31.
RossiterJR. The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. Int J Res Market2002; 4: 305–335.
32.
FishbeinMAjzenI. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, 1st ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
33.
Kripanont N. Examining a technology acceptance model of internet usage by academics within Thai Business Schools. Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia, 2007.
34.
TurnerMKitchenhamBBreretonP. Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Inform Softw Technol2010; 2: 463–479.
35.
HaynesSNRichardDKubanyES. Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess1995; 3: 238–247.
36.
SpreenM. Rare populations, hidden populations, and link-tracing designs: what and why. Bull Methodol Sociol1992; 1: 34–58.
37.
AtkinsonRFlintJ. Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: snowball research strategies. Soc Res Update2001; 1: 1–4.
38.
FaugierJSargeantM. Sampling hard to reach populations. J Adv Nurs1997; 4: 790–797.
39.
Hendricks VM, Blanken P, Adriaans NFP, et al. Snowball sampling: a pilot study on cocaine use. In: Snowball sampling: theoretical and practical considerations. Rotterdam, Netherlands: IOA Addiction Research Institute, 1992, pp.17–35.
40.
KellyKClarkBBrownV. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care2003; 3: 261–266.
41.
ChurchillGAJr. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Market Res1979; 1: 64–73.
42.
NunnallyJCB. Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994, pp. 75–75.
43.
RaubenheimerJ. An item selection procedure to maximize scale reliability and validity. SA J Ind Psychol2004; 4: 59–64.
44.
HairJFJrBlackWCBabinBJ. Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2010, pp. 81–81.
45.
GaurASGaurSS. Statistical methods for practice and research: a guide to data analysis using SPSS, 2nd ed. New Delhi: Sage Publication Pvt. Ltd, 2009, pp. 107–107.
46.
Costello AB and Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 2005; 7: 1–9.
47.
KimJOMuellerCW. Introduction to factor analysis: what it is and how to do it, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1978.
48.
CurranPJWestSGFinchJF. The robustness of test statistics to non-normality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol Methods1996; 1: 16–29.
49.
Manhas PS, Manrai AK, Manrai LA, et al. Role of structural equation modeling in theory testing and development. In: Moutinho L and Huarng K (eds) Quantitative modelling in marketing and management. 1st ed. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, 2012, pp. 27--42.
