| Literature DB >> 35972979 |
Amina Almarzouqi1, Ahmad Aburayya2, Said A Salloum3.
Abstract
An Electronic Medical Record (EMR) has the capability of promoting knowledge and awareness regarding healthcare in both healthcare providers and patients to enhance interconnectivity within various government bodies, and quality healthcare services. This study aims at investigating aspects that predict and explain an EMR system adoption in the healthcare system in the UAE through an integrated approach of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) using various external factors. The collection of data was through a cross-section design and survey questionnaires as the tool for data collection among 259 participants from 15 healthcare facilities in Dubai. The study further utilised the Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) algorithm and the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in the analysis of the data collected. The study's data proved that the intention of using an EMR system was the most influential and predictor of the actual use of the system. It was also found that TAM construct was directly influenced by anxiety, innovativeness, self-efficacy, and trust. The behavioural intention of an individual regarding EMR was also proved to positively influence the use of an EMR system. This study proves to be useful practically by providing healthcare decision-makers with a guide on factors to consider and what to avoid when implementing strategies and policies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35972979 PMCID: PMC9380954 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272735
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 1Research model and hypotheses.
Fig 3ANN model (Part I).
Fig 6ANN model (Part IV).
Demographic information of participants.
| Criterion | Factor | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Female | 182 | 70% |
| Male | 77 | 30% | |
|
| 18 to 29 | 98 | 38% |
| 30 to 39 | 58 | 22% | |
| 40 to 49 | 54 | 21% | |
| 50 to 59 | 49 | 19% | |
|
| Diploma | 5 | 2% |
| Bachelor | 168 | 65% | |
| Master | 59 | 23% | |
| Doctorate | 27 | 10% | |
|
| 1–5 | 52 | 20% |
| 5–10 | 42 | 16% | |
| 10–15 | 60 | 23% | |
| 15–20 | 59 | 23% | |
| 20+ | 46 | 18% | |
|
| Federal / Government | 210 | 81% |
| Private | 49 | 19% |
Cronbach’s Alpha values for the pilot study (Cronbach’s Alpha ≥ 0.70).
| Constructs | Cronbach’s Alpha. |
|---|---|
| AU | 0.823 |
| AX | 0.803 |
| BI | 0.735 |
| EE | 0.842 |
| FC | 0.832 |
| INN | 0.851 |
| PEU | 0.790 |
| PU | 0.867 |
| PE | 0.778 |
| SE | 0.886 |
| SI | 0.820 |
| TR | 0.861 |
Convergent validity results assuring acceptable values.
| Construct Regarding the use of EMR | Items | Factor Loading | CA | CR | AVE | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| AU I | .780 | 0.881 | 0.884 | 0.641 | [ |
| AU II | .720 | |||||
| AU III | .849 | |||||
|
| AX I | .880 | 0.851 | 0.875 | 0.770 | [ |
| AX II | .850 | |||||
|
| BI I | .783 | 0.784 | 0.863 | 0.600 | [ |
| BI II | .731 | |||||
| BI III | .892 | |||||
|
| EE I | .882 | 0.775 | 0.735 | 0.538 | [ |
| EE II | .849 | |||||
| EE III | .849 | |||||
|
| FC I | .811 | 0.830 | 0.833 | 0.663 | [ |
| FC II | .829 | |||||
| FC III | .829 | |||||
| FC IV | .831 | |||||
|
| INN I | .729 | 0.893 | 0.897 | 0.823 | [ |
| INN II | .829 | |||||
| INN III | .731 | |||||
|
| PEU I | .829 | 0.938 | 0.940 | 0.843 | [ |
| PEU II | .829 | |||||
| PEU III | .929 | |||||
| PEU IV | .781 | |||||
|
| PU I | .759 | 0.928 | 0.929 | 0.874 | [ |
| PU II | .733 | |||||
| PU III | .729 | |||||
|
| PE I | .820 | 0.856 | 0.858 | .0.777 | [ |
| PE II | .841 | |||||
| PE III | .812 | |||||
| PE IV | .861 | |||||
|
| SE I | .893 | 0.847 | 0.850 | 0.742 | [ |
| SE II | .802 | |||||
| SE III | .859 | |||||
|
| SI I | .829 | 0.813 | 0.899 | 0.621 | [ |
| SI II | .822 | |||||
| SI III | .829 | |||||
|
| TR I | .861 | 0.820 | 0.822 | 0.735 | [ |
| TR II | .720 | |||||
| TR III | .830 |
Fornell-Larcker scale.
| AU | AX | BI | EE | FC | INN | PEU | PU | PE | SE | SI | TR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||||||
|
| 0.113 |
| ||||||||||
|
| 0.446 | 0.529 |
| |||||||||
|
| 0.535 | 0.602 | 0.430 |
| ||||||||
|
| 0.525 | 0.496 | 0.518 | 0.345 |
| |||||||
|
| 0.606 | 0.652 | 0.417 | 0.379 | 0.587 |
| ||||||
|
| 0.257 | 0.562 | 0.402 | 0.494 | 0.520 | 0.402 |
| |||||
|
| 0.116 | 0.446 | 0.261 | 0.453 | 0.470 | 0.358 | 0.171 |
| ||||
|
| 0.159 | 0.425 | 0.268 | 0.427 | 0.403 | 0.257 | 0.131 | 0.233 |
| |||
|
| 0.136 | 0.462 | 0.336 | 0.575 | 0.467 | 0.328 | 0.086 | 0.297 | 0.136 |
| ||
|
| 0.500 | 0.645 | 0.602 | 0.360 | 0.729 | 0.422 | 0.139 | 0.576 | 0.500 | 0.645 |
| |
|
| 0.112 | 0.689 | 0.342 | 0.508 | 0.434 | 0.404 | 0.156 | 0.444 | 0.112 | 0.689 | 0.342 |
|
Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT).
| AU | AX | BI | EE | FC | INN | PEU | PU | PE | SE | SI | TR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| 0.209 | |||||||||||
|
| 0.087 | 0.204 | ||||||||||
|
| 0.095 | 0.214 | 0.107 | |||||||||
|
| 0.316 | 0.492 | 0.565 | 0.268 | ||||||||
|
| 0.423 | 0.617 | 0.613 | 0.330 | 0.675 | |||||||
|
| 0.502 | 0.496 | 0.612 | 0.309 | 0.561 | 0.730 | ||||||
|
| 0.465 | 0.617 | 0.691 | 0.378 | 0.650 | 0.791 | 0.116 | |||||
|
| 0.493 | 0.646 | 0.677 | 0.369 | 0.667 | 0.728 | 0.081 | 0.635 | ||||
|
| 0.072 | 0.469 | 0.260 | 0.351 | 0.491 | 0.274 | 0.045 | 0.255 | 0.624 | |||
|
| 0.240 | 0.396 | 0.267 | 0.419 | 0.447 | 0.280 | 0.023 | 0.236 | 0.409 | 0.240 | ||
|
| 0.259 | 0.551 | 0.405 | 0.406 | 0.522 | 0.426 | 0.111 | 0.355 | 0.595 | 0.259 | 0.551 |
Model fit indicators.
| Complete Model | ||
|---|---|---|
| Saturated Model | Estimated Model | |
|
| 0.031 | 0.032 |
|
| 0.771 | 1.312 |
|
| 0.567 | 0.570 |
|
| 440.225 | 445.681 |
|
| 0.836 | 0.840 |
|
|
| |
Note: SRMR- Standard root mean square residual, dULS- Squared Euclidean Distance, dG- Geodesic Distance, NFI- Normal Fit Index, RMS_theta- root mean squared residual covariance matrix of the outer model residuals (Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015; Lohmöller, 1989).
Hypotheses-testing of the research model.
| Hypotheses (H) | Relationship | Path | Direction | Decision | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| TR-> PU | 0.777 | 12.104 | 0.000 | + | Accepted |
|
| TR -> PEU | 0.337 | 3.717 | 0.026 | + | Accepted |
|
| SE-> PU | 0.442 | 2.208 | 0.032 | + | Accepted |
|
| SE -> PEU | 0.640 | 12.362 | 0.000 | + | Accepted |
|
| INN-> PU | 0.483 | 14.105 | 0.000 | + | Accepted |
|
| INN -> PEU | 0.551 | 10.248 | 0.000 | + | Accepted |
|
| AX-> PU | 0.306 | 2.765 | 0.029 | + | Accepted |
|
| AX -> PEU | 0.440 | 15.576 | 0.001 | + | Accepted |
|
| PU-> BI | 0.379 | 14.589 | 0.000 | + | Accepted |
|
| PEU-> BI | 0.313 | 2.633 | 0.023 | + | Accepted |
|
| PE-> BI | 0.424 | 2.066 | 0.041 | + | Accepted |
|
| EE-> BI | 0.514 | 3.925 | 0.038 | + | Accepted |
|
| SI-> BI | 0.281 | 2.067 | 0.033 | + | Accepted |
|
| FC-> BI | 0.653 | 9.687 | 0.000 | + | Accepted |
|
| BI-> AU | 0.748 | 13.128 | 0.000 | + | Accepted |
Note: + (positive)
Fig 2Path coefficient of the model (significant at p** < = 0.01, p* < 0.05).
R2 of the endogenous latent variables.
| Constructs | R2 | Predictive power |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.736 | High |
|
| 0.753 | High |
|
| 0.693 | High |
|
| 0.721 | High |
Independent variable importance.
| Mean Importance | Normalised Importance | |
|---|---|---|
|
| .459 | 100.0% |
|
| .390 | 95.0% |
|
| .375 | 93.4% |
|
| .220 | 79.8% |
|
| .319 | 77.8% |
|
| .212 | 76.9% |
|
| .156 | 56.8% |
|
| .189 | 46.2% |
|
| .076 | 27.5% |
|
| .061 | 22.2% |
|
| .083 | 20.1% |
Fig 7IPMA results.
Summary of ranking importance.
| Output: Actual use of the EMR | PLS-SEM | IPMA | ANN sensitively |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 7 | 7 | 2 |
|
| 8 | 8 | 3 |
|
| 9 | 9 | 4 |
|
| 3 | 3 | 5 |
|
| 2 | 2 | 6 |
|
| 5 | 5 | 7 |
|
| 4 | 4 | 8 |
|
| 10 | 10 | 9 |
|
| 4 | 4 | 10 |
|
| 6 | 6 | 11 |