| Literature DB >> 35756832 |
Kup-Sze Choi1, Sze-Ho Chan1, Cho-Lik Ho1, Marek Matejak2.
Abstract
Objective: The need for health and social care for community-dwelling elderly is on the rise as the population ages. Through the provision of comprehensive services by multiple professionals in local communities, elderly people can receive continual care in a non-medical setting, which is favorable for early detection and intervention of potential problems. However, the lack of digitalization in primary care affects the effectiveness of the services and precludes full exploitation of the data. This study proposed an information system dedicated to caring for community-dwelling elderly people and investigated its acceptance and usability.Entities:
Keywords: Older adults; community health; healthcare information system; interoperability; primary care
Year: 2022 PMID: 35756832 PMCID: PMC9218899 DOI: 10.1177/20552076221109083
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Digit Health ISSN: 2055-2076
List of abbreviations used in the paper.
| Abbreviation | Meaning |
|---|---|
|
| Cronbach's alpha |
|
| Spearman's correlation coefficient rho |
| API | Application Programming Interface |
| CSUQ | Computer System Usability Questionnaire |
| EHIS | Elderly Healthcare Information System (the system proposed in this study) |
| EHR | Electron Health Records |
| eHRSS | Electronic Health Record Sharing System |
| FHIR | Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources |
| HAPI | Health Level Seven Application Programming Interface |
| HL7 | Health Level Seven |
| JSON | JavaScript Object Notation |
| LOINC | Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes |
| REST | Representational State Transfer |
| SNOMED-CT | Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms |
| UTAUT | Unified Technology Acceptance and Use of Technology |
Figure 1.Overall framework of the EHIS: database subsystem (bottom), interoperability-enabling subsystem (middle), and add-on connectivity module (top).
Responses of EHIS users on the survey based on UTAUT.
| Construct | Mean | SD | 95% CI | Neutral | Positive | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance expectancy | 5.0 | 0.77 | 4.77–5.45 | 21% | 75% | 4% |
| Effort expectancy | 5.3 | 0.95 | 4.69–5.89 | 21% | 79% | 0% |
| Social influence | 5.5 | 0.77 | 4.98–5.96 | 8% | 89% | 3% |
| Facilitating conditions | 5.6 | 0.92 | 4.98–6.15 | 18% | 82% | 0% |
| Attitude | 4.8 | 1.00 | 4.20–5.47 | 29% | 60% | 11% |
| Self-efficacy | 5.3 | 0.94 | 4.69–5.89 | 21% | 75% | 4% |
| Anxiety* | 3.2 | 1.29 | 2.32–3.97 | 21% | 23% | 56% |
| Behavioral intention | 5.4 | 1.98 | 4.80–6.04 | 11% | 86% | 3% |
*Questions were in negative statements.
Figure 2.Distributions of responses to the constructs of UTAUT. PE: performance expectancy; EE: effort expectancy; SI: social influence; FC: facilitating conditions; AT: attitude; SE: self-efficacy; AX: anxiety; BI: behavioral intention.
Responses of EHIS users on the survey based on CSUQ.
| Subscale | Mean | SD | 95% CI | Neutral | Positive | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| System usefulness | 5.3 | 0.81 | 4.75–5.78 | 17% | 82% | 1% |
| Information quality | 4.9 | 0.77 | 4.38–5.26 | 27% | 68% | 5% |
| Interface quality | 4.9 | 1.14 | 4.22–5.67 | 47% | 50% | 3% |
| Overall | 5.1 | 0.46 | 4.58–5.55 | 26% | 71% | 3% |
Figure 3.Distributions of responses to the subscales of CSUQ. SYSUSE: system usefulness; INFOQUAL: information quality; INTERQUAL: interface quality.
Reliability of constructs.
| Constructs | Cronbach's | Number of Items |
|---|---|---|
| Performance expectancy | 0.875 | 4 |
| Effort expectancy | 0.964 | 4 |
| Social influence | 0.789 | 3 |
| Facilitating conditions | 0.897 | 5 |
| Attitude | 0.887 | 4 |
| Self-efficacy | 0.582 | 2 |
| Anxiety | 0.792 | 4 |
| Behavioral intention | 0.955 | 3 |
Spearman's correlation coefficients between behavioral intention and four constructs.
| Performance expectancy | Effort expectancy | Social influence | Facilitating conditions | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Behavioral intention | Spearman's | 0.310 | 0.431 | 0.733** | 0.648* |
|
| 0.326 | 0.162 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 (2-tailed)
Example of FHIR Patient resource in the proposed EHIS.
|
|
Example of FHIR Observation resource implemented in the proposed EHIS.
|
|
Example of FHIR Questionnaire resource, implemented for the short version of the Geriatric Depression Scale.
|
|
Example of FHIR QuestionnaireResponse resource, implemented for the short version of the Geriatric Depression Scale.
|
|
Summary of items in the survey questionnaire based on UTAUT.
| Construct | No. of items | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Performance expectancy | 4 | Usefulness, speediness, productivity, and convenience that EHIS would offer in performing the work |
| Effort expectancy | 4 | Clarity and understandability of the interactions with EHIS; easiness of use and of learning to use the EHIS, and easiness of becoming skillful at using EHIS |
| Social influence | 3 | Views of colleagues on the need to use EHIS and management's support |
| Facilitating conditions | 5 | Availability of resources, knowledge, assistance for using EHIS; and willingness to use EHIS voluntarily |
| Attitude | 4 | Appreciation toward EHIS; degree of interestedness and pleasure with EHIS |
| Self-efficacy | 2 | Ability to use EHIS independently |
| Anxiety | 4 | Apprehensiveness, worry, hesitation, and intimidation in using EHIS |
| Behavioral intention | 3 | Intention, prediction, and plan to use EHIS in the next 12 months |
Summary of items in the survey questionnaire based on CSUQ.
| Subscale | No. of items | Description |
|---|---|---|
| System usefulness | 8 | Satisfaction toward easiness, simplicity, and comfort of use of EHIS; agreement with the efficiency, effectiveness, speediness, and productivity that the use of EHIS would enhance |
| Information quality | 7 | Clarity of error messages, recovery of mistakes, clarity of online help or on-screen messages, easiness of access of information required, on-screen information organization, and effectiveness of the information in completing the work |
| Interface quality | 3 | Availability of expected functions and capabilities; degree of satisfaction and pleasure with the interface |
| Overall | 19 | Average of the first 18 items above and the last item concerning the overall satisfaction toward the system's usability |