OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to gain insight into the individual user acceptance of PACS by the radiology department staff of the Ghent University Hospital. Hereto a basic--direct effects only--form of UTAUT was assessed. METHODS: Ninety-four questionnaires were distributed and 56 usable questionnaires were returned (19 radiologists - 37 technologists). The questionnaire consisted of scales of Venkatesh et al. [13] for performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), facilitating conditions (FC), social influence (SI), self-efficacy (SE), attitude (ATT), anxiety (ANX) and behavioral intention (BI), and a scale of Moore et al. [22] to assess the perceived voluntariness of PACS-use. RESULTS: The reliability of all scales, except FC and voluntariness, was acceptable to good. The voluntariness scale was divided into a mandatoriness (MAN) and a voluntariness (VOL) measure. Both radiologists and technologists seem to welcome PACS, with radiologists having higher ratings on PE, EE, ATT, VOL and BI. Only PE and FC were salient for predicting BI, while EE and SI were not salient. Variance explained in behavioral intention to use PACS was 48%. CONCLUSION: Both radiologists and technologists were positive towards PACS and had strong intentions to use PACS. As other healthcare professionals, they appear to make their technology acceptance decision independent from their superiors, hereby focusing on usefulness rather than on ease of use. It is also important that support is supplied. Basic UTAUT is an adequate model to assess technology acceptance in a radiological setting.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to gain insight into the individual user acceptance of PACS by the radiology department staff of the Ghent University Hospital. Hereto a basic--direct effects only--form of UTAUT was assessed. METHODS: Ninety-four questionnaires were distributed and 56 usable questionnaires were returned (19 radiologists - 37 technologists). The questionnaire consisted of scales of Venkatesh et al. [13] for performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), facilitating conditions (FC), social influence (SI), self-efficacy (SE), attitude (ATT), anxiety (ANX) and behavioral intention (BI), and a scale of Moore et al. [22] to assess the perceived voluntariness of PACS-use. RESULTS: The reliability of all scales, except FC and voluntariness, was acceptable to good. The voluntariness scale was divided into a mandatoriness (MAN) and a voluntariness (VOL) measure. Both radiologists and technologists seem to welcome PACS, with radiologists having higher ratings on PE, EE, ATT, VOL and BI. Only PE and FC were salient for predicting BI, while EE and SI were not salient. Variance explained in behavioral intention to use PACS was 48%. CONCLUSION: Both radiologists and technologists were positive towards PACS and had strong intentions to use PACS. As other healthcare professionals, they appear to make their technology acceptance decision independent from their superiors, hereby focusing on usefulness rather than on ease of use. It is also important that support is supplied. Basic UTAUT is an adequate model to assess technology acceptance in a radiological setting.