| Literature DB >> 34868523 |
Malik Bader Alazzam1, Husam Al Khatib2, Walid Theib Mohammad3, Fawaz Alassery4.
Abstract
This research explores how e-health systems' features (information quality, quality of the system, usability perceived, and perceived usefulness) contribute to improving medical personnel performance in medical centers, patient care, and physician-patient interactions in Jordan. The objective is to evaluate a single integrated model consisting of the technology acceptance model. This study used the logical research method and approach. A collection of data from 212 medical personnel working in 19 healthcare facilities throughout Jordan were gathered. To analyze the data collected and test the hypotheses of the research, a partially square/structural equation modeling method has been employed. The study found that the health information system (HIS) information quality has a direct and indirect beneficial effect on the performance of the staff, beneficial effects on patient care alone, and only favorable, indirect effects on the doctor-patient relationship. On the contrary, system quality was shown to influence directly and indirectly and to have a direct and indirect beneficial effect both on the connection between doctors and patients. Remember that the HIS has accessibility, speed, and mistake detection and avoids error issues. These shortcomings are suggested to be rectified in conjunction with improved user perception towards easy usage and utilization of the system.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34868523 PMCID: PMC8642007 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5887911
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Conceptual framework of the study.
Percentage distribution.
| Table, | ||
|---|---|---|
| Gender of the respondents | Male | 71.0% |
| Female | 29.0% | |
|
| ||
| Marital status of the respondents | Single | 56.1% |
| Married | 43.9% | |
|
| ||
| Age of the respondents | 18–25 years | 29.8% |
| 25–35 years | 53.4% | |
| 35–50 years | 16.8% | |
| Above 50 years | 0.0% | |
|
| ||
| Qualification of the respondents | Graduation | 40.2% |
| Master | 39.9% | |
| PhD | 1.5% | |
| Others | 18.4% | |
Figure 2Gender distribution.
Descriptive analysis of the variables.
|
| Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. deviation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Information quality | 212 | 1.00 | 4.67 | 2.4072 | 0.94798 |
| System quality | 212 | 1.00 | 4.67 | 2.4104 | 0.93936 |
| User performance | 212 | 1.00 | 4.67 | 2.3742 | 0.90135 |
| Patient care | 212 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.4921 | 1.08387 |
| Doctor-patient relationship | 212 | 1.00 | 4.67 | 2.3915 | 0.92207 |
| Valid | 212 |
Reliability, factor, and normality analysis.
| Factor loadings | Normality (skewness) | Cronbach's alpha | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information quality | 0.994 | 0.561 | 0.79 |
| System quality | 0.976 | 0.48 | |
| User performance | 0.922 | 0.627 | |
| Patient care | 0.937 | 0.482 | |
| Doctor-patient relationship | 0.987 | 0.499 |
Correlation analysis.
| Information quality | System quality | User performance | Patient care | Doctor-patient relationship | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Information quality | 1 | ||||
| System quality | 0.969 | ||||
| User performance | 0.905 | 0.868 | |||
| Patient care | 0.924 | 0.897 | 0.785 | ||
| Doctor-patient relationship | 0.988 | 0.967 | 0.887 | 0.910 | 1 |
∗∗Correlation analysis and significance of 0.5.
Regression analysis.
| Information quality | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Std. error | Beta |
| Sig. | |
| User performance | 0.994 | 0.112 | 1.045 | 8.842 | 0 |
| Patient care | 0.255 | 0.122 | 0.897 | 8.408 | 0 |
| Doctoral-patient relationship | 0.808 | 0.041 | 0.831 | 19.884 | 0 |
Regression analysis.
| System quality | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Std. error | Beta |
| Sig. | |
| User performance | −0.139 | 0.113 | −0.145 | 1.226 | 0.001 |
| Patient care | 0.320 | 0.123 | 0.028 | 0.263 | 0.003 |
| Doctoral-patient relationship | 0.159 | 0.041 | 0.162 | 3.877 | 0.000 |