| Literature DB >> 28112020 |
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to understand the critical quality-related factors that affect cloud computing success of hospitals in Taiwan. In this study, private cloud computing is the major research target. The chief information officers participated in a questionnaire survey. The results indicate that the integration of trust into the information systems success model will have acceptable explanatory power to understand cloud computing success in the hospital. Moreover, information quality and system quality directly affect cloud computing satisfaction, whereas service quality indirectly affects the satisfaction through trust. In other words, trust serves as the mediator between service quality and satisfaction. This cloud computing success model will help hospitals evaluate or achieve success after adopting private cloud computing health care services.Entities:
Keywords: cloud computing; cloud computing success model; health care services; information systems success model; trust
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28112020 PMCID: PMC5798708 DOI: 10.1177/0046958016685836
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Inquiry ISSN: 0046-9580 Impact factor: 1.730
Figure 1.Information systems success model.[4]
Figure 2.Research model.
Variable Definitions and Measurements.
| Variable | Operational definition | Item No. | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information quality[ | The quality of the information that a cloud-based hospital IS providing to users | 9 | Teo et al[ |
| System quality[ | The level of system design quality and user friendliness of cloud-based hospital IS | 6 | Teo et al[ |
| Service quality[ | The service quality provided by the cloud service provider | 22 | Pitt et al[ |
| Trust[ | The degree of hospital’s trust toward the cloud service provider | 4 | Han et al[ |
| Satisfaction[ | The degree of hospital’s satisfaction toward the cloud-based IS system | 7 | Teo et al[ |
Note. IS = information systems.
Validity and Reliability.
| Variables | CR | AVE | Factor loading |
| Cronbach’s α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Information quality | .95 | 0.71 | 0.72-0.90 | NA | .94 |
| System quality | .96 | 0.82 | 0.75-0.95 | NA | .96 |
| Service quality | .99 | 0.82 | 0.85-0.91 | NA | .99 |
| Trust | .99 | 0.97 | 0.98-0.99 | .27 | .99 |
| Satisfaction | .97 | 0.84 | 0.91-0.93 | .65 | .97 |
Note. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; NA = not applicable.
Overall Analysis.
| Hypotheses | Path coefficient (β) | Support | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Information quality → Trust | .04 | 0.23 | No |
| H2: System quality → Trust | .25 | 1.26 | No |
| H3: Service quality → Trust | .37 | 2.54 | Yes |
| H4: Information quality → Satisfaction | .34 | 2.29 | Yes |
| H5: System quality → Satisfaction | .35 | 2.04 | Yes |
| H6: Service quality → Satisfaction | (.14) | 1.76 | No |
| H7: Trust → Satisfaction | .37 | 2.65 | Yes |
P < .05. **P < .01.
Parenthetical value indicates negative value.
Figure 3.PLS structural results.
Note. PLS = partial least square; IS = information systems.
*P < .05. **P < .01.
Parenthetical value indicates negative value.