Intention of Continuing to use the Hospital Information System
Integrating the elaboration-likelihood, social influence and cognitive learning
Keywords:
Hospital information system; Informative and normative social influence; Cognitive and affective perceive; Structural equation modelingAbstract
Introduction: Anticipating effective factors in information system acceptance by using persuasive messages, is one of the main issues less focused on so far. This is one of the first attempts at using the elaboration-likelihood model combined with the perception of emotional, cognitive, self-efficacy, informational and normative influence constructs, in order to investigate the determinants of intention to continue use of the hospital information system in Iran.
Methods: The present study is a cross-sectional survey conducted in 2014. 600 nursing staff were chosen from clinical sectors of public hospitals using purposive sampling. The questionnaire survey was in two parts: Part one was comprised of demographic data, and part two included 52 questions pertaining to the constructs of the model in the study. To analyze the data, structural equation model using LISREL 8.5 software was applied.
Result: The findings suggest that self-efficacy (t= 6.01, β= 0.21), affective response (t= 5.84, β= 0.23), and cognitive response (t= 4.97, β= 0.21) explained 64% of the variance for the intention of continuing to use the hospital information system. Furthermore, the final model was able to explain 0.46 for self-efficacy, 0.44 for normative social influence, 0.52 for affective response, 0.55 for informational social influence, and 0.53 for cognitive response.
Conclusion: Designing the necessary mechanisms and effective use of appropriate strategies to improve emotional and cognitive understanding and self-efficacy of the nursing staff is required, in order to increase the intention of continued use of the hospital information system in Iran.
References
Cline GB, Luiz JM. Information technology systems in public sector health facilities in developing
countries: the case of South Africa. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013; 13(1): 13. doi: 10.1186/1472- 6947-13-13. PMID: 23347433, PMCID: PMC3570341.
Ahmadi M, Kaldi AR. Study of the Feeling of Social Security of Women in Sanandaj City and Social
Factors affecting on it. Sociology of women. 2013; 3(12): 1-19.
Mirza AA. Failure and success factors of an information system development in a charitable organization.
Global Journal of Management And Business Research. 2010; 10(3): 79-83.
Hassibian MR. Electronic Health Records Acceptance and Implementation in Developing Countries:
Challenges and Barriers. Razavi International Journal of Medicine. 2013; 1(1): 6-11. doi:
17795/rijm15077.
Clayton PD. Obstacles to the Implementation and Acceptance of Electronic Medical Record Systems.
Building a Better Delivery System: A New Engineering/Health Care Partnership. 2005.
Park SY, Nam MW, Cha SB. University students' behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating
the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2012; 43(4): 592-605. doi:
1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x.
Shih CL, Fan YL, Shen YT, Li YL, Horng CT, Chen IC, et al. Our Experience on the Influence of Task- Technology Fit Model on the Performance of Nursing Information System in Armed Forces General
Hospital in Taiwan, Republic of China. Life Science Journal. 2014; 11(10): 1166-75.
Nazari F, Khosravi F, Babalhavaeji F. Applying Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation theory to the acceptance
of online databases at University Zone of Iran. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science. 2013;
(3): 25-38.
Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology Journal. 1986; (19): 123-205.
Bhattacherjee A, Sanford C. Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration
likelihood model. MIS quarterly. 2006: 805-25.
Deutsch M, Gerard HB. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual
judgment. The journal of abnormal and social psychology. 1955; 51(3): 629-36. doi: 10.1037/h0046408.
Ratten V, Ratten H. Social cognitive theory in technological innovations. European Journal of Innovation
Management. 2007; 10(1): 90-108. doi: 10.1108/14601060710720564.
Bandura A. Self‐efficacy. Wiley Online Library. 1994.
Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion
into the technology acceptance model. Information systems research. 2000; 11(4): 342-65. doi:
1287/isre.11.4.342.11872.
Farzandipour M, Meidani Z, Gilasi H, Dehghan banadaki R. Ranking of hospital information systems
based on requirements of Iran in 2014. Journal of Modern Medical Information Science. 2015; 1(1): 1-9.
Wilson FR, Pan W, Schumsky DA. Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2012; 45(3): 197-210. doi:
1177/0748175612440286.
Shi J, Mo X, Sun Z. [Content validity index in scale development]. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue
Ban. 2012; 37(2): 152-5. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7347.2012.02.007. PMID: 22561427.
Santos JRA. Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of extension. 1999;
(2): 1-5.
Raykov T. Evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity with multitrait-multimethod correlations. Br
J Math Stat Psychol. 2011; 64(1): 38-52. doi: 10.1348/000711009X478616. PMID: 21506944.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of marketing research. 1981; 18(1): 39-50. doi: 10.2307/3151312.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications. 2015.
Jöreskog K, Sörbom D. LISREL 8.5 [software]. Chicago, Ill: Scientific Software International. 2001.
Moss S. Fit indices for structural equation modeling. Accessed April 3 2013. http://www.psychit.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp? id=277. 2009.
Li CY. Persuasive messages on information system acceptance: A theoretical extension of elaboration
likelihood model and social influence theory. Computers in Human Behavior. 2013; 29(1): 264-75. doi:
1016/j.chb.2012.09.003
Johnston A, Warkentin M. The influence of perceived source credibility on end user attitudes and
intentions to comply with recommended IT actions. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing.
; 22(3): 1-21. doi: 10.4018/joeuc.2010070101.
Chung N, Han H, Koo C. Tourists' Attachment Processes and Behavioral Changes in Social Media:
Persuasion and Reference Group Influence Perspective. PACIS. 2013.
Rucker DD, Petty RE. Increasing the effectiveness of communications to consumers: Recommendations
based on elaboration likelihood and attitude certainty perspectives. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing.
; 25(1): 39-52. doi: 10.1509/jppm.25.1.39.
Roach JB, Yadrick MK, Johnson JT, Boudreaux LJ, Forsythe WA, Billon W. Using self-efficacy to predict
weight loss among young adults. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2003; 103(10): 1357-9. doi:
1016/S0002-8223(03)01072-1.
Vries HD, Backbier E, Kok G, Dijkstra M. The Impact of Social Influences in the Context of Attitude, Self ‐Efficacy, Intention, and Previous Behavior as Predictors of Smoking Onset1. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology. 1995; 25(3): 237-57. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01593.x.
Phillips J, Gully S. Organizational behavior 2e. Tools for success: Cengage Learning. 2011.
Kamran F, Ebadati Nazarloo S. Evaluation of socio-economic factors affecting in peace and social security
among female students at University of Tehran International Journal of Business and Social Science. 2011;
(6): 43-55.
Verplanken B, Hofstee G, Janssen HJ. Accessibility of affective versus cognitive components of attitudes.
European Journal of Social Psychology. 1998; 28(1): 23-35. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099- 0992(199801/02)28:1<23::AID-EJSP843>3.0.CO;2-Z
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 KNOWLEDGE KINGDOM PUBLISHING
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
