| Literature DB >> 31193710 |
O S Ayanlade1, T O Oyebisi1, B A Kolawole2.
Abstract
This study examined the level of acceptance of Health Information Technology (HIT) as tools for diabetes care and management, in six selected tertiary hospitals in southwestern zone of Nigeria. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, this study was conducted amongst selected healthcare stakeholders namely Nurses, Doctors, Laboratory Scientists, Pharmacists, ICT unit Professionals, Medical Record Officers, and Type-2 diabetes out-patients available in the designated hospitals. Adapting Technology Acceptance and Chronic Care Models, the level of HIT acceptance by the respondents in the study area was measured in terms of Perceived Ease-of-Use, Perceived Usefulness, and the Perceived Unintended Consequences relating to HIT, while also considering the roles of the government, community and healthcare organizations. One hundred and fifty (150) respondents were examined, each for both Staff and Patients, and the factor variables studied on a 5-point Likert rating scale of measurement from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The results revealed strong perception of Staff and Patients about HIT implementation and acceptance and showed that in some cases, the perception of Staff and patients about HIT acceptance are the same, while different in some. The study concluded that for acceptability of HIT, hospitals have to embark on 'continuous' training for the HIT users, so that users would familiarize themselves with the system, and it will be fully incorporated into their workflow. Based on the findings, a conceptual Health Information Technology Acceptance Framework for Chronic diseases' management, especially for diabetes mellitus was developed.Entities:
Keywords: Health profession; Information science
Year: 2019 PMID: 31193710 PMCID: PMC6539785 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01735
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Fig. 1Technology acceptance model (Modified after Davis et al., 1989).
Measurement variables for acceptability of HIT.
| S/N | Perceived | Perceived | Perceived Unintended Consequences of HIT |
|---|---|---|---|
| i. | Using HIT would allow me to complete tasks more quickly | Learning to use HIT will not be difficult for me | Implementation of HIT could lead to job loss |
| ii. | Using HIT would improve my job performance | I will find it easy to use HIT for what I want it to do | HIT will even create more errors than expected |
| iii. | Using HIT would increase my job productivity | My interaction with HIT will be understandable and clear | HIT will be a third party between me and my patient, thus will be a distraction |
| iv. | HIT would enhance my job effectiveness | I would find HIT flexible to interact with | HIT would be taking more of my time in typing and recording |
| v. | Using HIT will make it easier to do my job | It will be easy for me to be skilful at using HIT | HIT would introduce more patient data security breaches |
| vi. | Generally, I will find HIT useful in my job | Generally, I will find HIT easy to use | HIT would negatively affect the way I express my thoughts in clinical notes and how I communicate with my colleagues |
Fig. 2The Chronic Care Model, CCM (Wagner, 1998).
Cronbach's alpha reliability analysis for the studied variables.
| Research Objective | No of Items Considered | Cronbach's Alpha | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Staff | Patients | ||
| Level of HIT Acceptance | 37 | 0.825 | 0.710 |
Perceived usefulness of HIT among the staff.
| S/N | Perceived Usefulness | N | Min | Max | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Job Easiness | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 2. | Job Performance Improvement | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 3. | Quick Task Accomplishment | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 4. | General Job Usefulness | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 5. | Job Effectiveness Enhancement | 150 | 1 | 5 | 3.97 |
| 6. | Job Productivity Increment | 150 | 1 | 5 | 3.91 |
5.0: Strongly Agreed, 4.0–4.99: Slightly Agreed, 3.0–3.99: Neither Agreed nor Disagreed, 2.0–2.99: Slightly Disagreed and 1.0–1.99: Strongly Disagreed.
Mean for Agreed items.
Perceived usefulness of HIT among the patients.
| S/N | Perceived Usefulness | N | Min | Max | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Disease Management Plans Improvement | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 2. | Easy Disease Management Plans | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 3. | Seeing Healthcare Provider Quickly | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 4. | Disease Management Plans Enhancement | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.19 |
| 5. | Useful in Disease Management Plans | 150 | 1 | 4 | 1.17 |
| 6. | Disease Management Plans Effectiveness | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.16 |
5.0: Strongly Agreed, 4.0–4.99: Slightly Agreed, 3.0–3.99: Neither Agreed nor Disagreed, 2.0–2.99: Slightly Disagreed and 1.0–1.99: Strongly Disagreed.
Mean for Agreed items.
Perceived ease-of-use of HIT among the staff.
| S/N | Perceived Ease-of-Use | N | Min | Max | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Understandable and Clear Interaction | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 2. | Flexible Interaction | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 3. | Easy Usage | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 4. | General Easiness | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 5. | Easy Learning | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 6. | Skills Enhancement | 150 | 1 | 5 | 3.95 |
5.0: Strongly Agreed, 4.0–4.99: Slightly Agreed, 3.0–3.99: Neither Agreed nor Disagreed, 2.0–2.99: Slightly Disagreed and 1.0–1.99: Strongly Disagreed.
Mean for Agreed items.
Perceived ease-of-use of HIT among the patients.
| Perceived Ease-of-Use | N | Min | Max | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Understandable and Clear Interaction | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| Flexible Interaction | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| Easy Usage | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| Skills Enhancement | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.47 |
| General Easiness | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.43 |
| Easy Learning | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.20 |
5.0: Strongly Agreed, 4.0–4.99: Slightly Agreed, 3.0–3.99: Neither Agreed nor Disagreed, 2.0–2.99: Slightly Disagreed and 1.0–1.99: Strongly Disagreed.
Mean for Agreed items.
Perceived unintended consequences of HIT among the staff.
| S/N | Perceived Unintended Consequence | N | Min | Max | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Data Insecurity | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 2. | Job Loss | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 3. | Time Consuming | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 4. | Lack of Thought Expression and Communication | 150 | 1 | 5 | 2.97 |
| 5. | Error Creation | 150 | 1 | 5 | 2.93 |
| 6. | Third Party | 150 | 1 | 5 | 2.28 |
5.0: Strongly Agreed, 4.0–4.99: Slightly Agreed, 3.0–3.99: Neither Agreed nor Disagreed, 2.0–2.99: Slightly Disagreed and 1.0–1.99: Strongly Disagreed.
Mean for Agreed items.
Perceived unintended consequences of HIT among the patients.
| S/N | Perceived Unintended | N | Min | Max | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Data Security Breaches | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 2. | Third Party | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 3. | Error Creation | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 4. | Lack of Healthcare Provider Relationship | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.71 |
| 5. | Time Consuming | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.46 |
5.0: Strongly Agreed, 4.0–4.99: Slightly Agreed, 3.0–3.99: Neither Agreed nor Disagreed, 2.0–2.99: Slightly Disagreed and 1.0–1.99: Strongly Disagreed.
Mean for Agreed items.
Overall perception of staff about HIT implementation.
| S/N | Perception | N | Min | Max | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Understandable And Clear Interaction | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 2. | Flexible Interaction | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.60 |
| 3. | Data Insecurity | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.60 |
| 4. | Job Loss | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.60 |
| 5. | Job Easiness | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.60 |
| 6. | Time Consuming | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.59 |
| 7. | Job Performance Improvement | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.59 |
| 8. | Easy Usage | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.56 |
| 9. | Quick Task Accomplishment | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.41 |
| 10. | General Easiness | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.07 |
| 11. | Easy Learning | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.03 |
| 12. | General Job Usefulness | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.03 |
| 13. | Job Effectiveness Enhancement | 150 | 1 | 5 | 3.97 |
| 14. | Skills Enhancement | 150 | 1 | 5 | 3.95 |
| 15. | Job Productivity Increment | 150 | 1 | 5 | 3.91 |
| 16. | Thought Expression and Communication | 150 | 1 | 5 | 2.97 |
| 17. | Error Creation | 150 | 1 | 5 | 2.93 |
| 18. | Third Party | 150 | 1 | 5 | 2.28 |
5.0: Strongly Agreed, 4.0–4.99: Slightly Agreed, 3.0–3.99: Neither Agreed nor Disagreed, 2.0–2.99: Slightly Disagreed and 1.0–1.99: Strongly Disagreed.
Highest Mean for Agreed items.
Overall perception of patients about HIT implementation.
| S/N | Perception | N | Min | Max | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Disease Management Plans Improvement | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 2. | Easy Disease Management Plans | 150 | 1 | 5 | |
| 3. | Understandable and Clear Interaction | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.77 |
| 4. | Seeing Healthcare Provider Quickly | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.77 |
| 5. | Flexible Interaction | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.77 |
| 6. | Easy Usage | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.59 |
| 7. | Data Security Breaches | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.56 |
| 8. | Third Party | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.49 |
| 9. | Error Creation | 150 | 1 | 5 | 4.02 |
| 10. | Healthcare Provider Relationship | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.71 |
| 11. | Skills Enhancement | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.47 |
| 12. | Time Consuming | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.46 |
| 13. | General Easiness | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.43 |
| 14. | Easy Learning | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.20 |
| 15. | Disease Management Plans Enhancement | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.19 |
| 16. | Useful in Disease Management Plans | 150 | 1 | 4 | 1.17 |
| 17. | Disease Management Plans Effectiveness | 150 | 1 | 5 | 1.16 |
5.0: Strongly Agreed, 4.0–4.99: Slightly Agreed, 3.0–3.99: Neither Agreed nor Disagreed, 2.0–2.99: Slightly Disagreed and 1.0–1.99: Strongly Disagreed.
Highest Mean for Agreed items.
Fig. 3Health Information Technology Acceptance Framework for Chronic diseases' management, especially diabetes (Adapted from Davis et al, 1989 and Wagner, 1998). KEY/LEGEND; Perceived Ease-of-Use: CU – Clear Use, UN – Understandable Navigation, FI – Flexible Interaction, SL – Skill Learning, EL – Easy to Learn; Perceived Usefulness: TA – Task Accomplishment, JI – Job Improvement, JP – Job Productivity, JE – Job Effectiveness, EJ – Easiness of Job; Perceived Unintended Consequences of HIT: CD – Communication Disruption, EG – Error Generation, TP – Third Party, TT – Time Taken, SB – Security Breaches, JB – Job Loss; Readiness to Change Behaviour after Implementation: PT – Poor Typing, EU – EMR-features Usage, WR – Workflow Readjustment, IU – Internet Usage, PI – Patient Involvement, EC – Erroneous Copying; Prevention of Unintended Consequences of HIT: TE – Thought Expression, DI – Doctor-patient Interaction, MA – Medical Accuracy, SC – Security and Confidentiality; Success Factors of HIT: CR – Complete Records, NE – Needed Expertise, HN – Hospitals' Network, SC – Security and Confidentiality, PI – Patient Involvement, PC – Patient-Doctor Communication, PE – Patient Education, DP – Delivery Process, RA – Records Accessibility, ET – Effective Treatment, AD – Accurate Decision, TD – True Diagnosis, CP- Clear Prescription; Delivery System Design: EA – Expertise Availability, PR – Staff-Patient Ratio, OS – Organisational Structure, SC – Security Consciousness.