Display options
Cite
Holden RJ, Asan O, Wozniak EM, et al. Nurses' perceptions, acceptance, and use of a novel in-room pediatric ICU technology: testing an expanded technology acceptance model. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):145doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0388-y.
Holden, R. J., Asan, O., Wozniak, E. M., Flynn, K. E., & Scanlon, M. C. (2016). Nurses' perceptions, acceptance, and use of a novel in-room pediatric ICU technology: testing an expanded technology acceptance model. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 16(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0388-y
Holden, Richard J, et al. "Nurses' perceptions, acceptance, and use of a novel in-room pediatric ICU technology: testing an expanded technology acceptance model." BMC medical informatics and decision making vol. 16,1 (2016): 145. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0388-y
Holden RJ, Asan O, Wozniak EM, Flynn KE, Scanlon MC. Nurses' perceptions, acceptance, and use of a novel in-room pediatric ICU technology: testing an expanded technology acceptance model. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Nov 15;16(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0388-y. PMID: 27846827; PMCID: PMC5109818.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Nov 15;16(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0388-y.

Nurses' perceptions, acceptance, and use of a novel in-room pediatric ICU technology: testing an expanded technology acceptance model.

BMC medical informatics and decision making

Richard J Holden, Onur Asan, Erica M Wozniak, Kathryn E Flynn, Matthew C Scanlon

Affiliations

  1. Department of BioHealth Informatics, Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
  2. Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. [email protected].
  3. Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
  4. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.

PMID: 27846827 PMCID: PMC5109818 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-016-0388-y

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The value of health information technology (IT) ultimately depends on end users accepting and appropriately using it for patient care. This study examined pediatric intensive care unit nurses' perceptions, acceptance, and use of a novel health IT, the Large Customizable Interactive Monitor.

METHODS: An expanded technology acceptance model was tested by applying stepwise linear regression to data from a standardized survey of 167 nurses.

RESULTS: Nurses reported low-moderate ratings of the novel IT's ease of use and low to very low ratings of usefulness, social influence, and training. Perceived ease of use, usefulness for patient/family involvement, and usefulness for care delivery were associated with system satisfaction (R

CONCLUSIONS: The findings have implications for research, design, implementation, and policies for nursing informatics, particularly novel nursing IT. Several changes are recommended to improve the design and implementation of the studied IT.

Keywords: Human-computer interaction; Nursing informatics; Pediatric intensive care; Technology acceptance model; Usability

References

  1. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2000 Sep;83(1):33-60 - PubMed
  2. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2004 Oct 16;4:18 - PubMed
  3. CMAJ. 2006 May 23;174(11):1573-8 - PubMed
  4. Int J Med Inform. 2008 May;77(5):324-35 - PubMed
  5. Med Care Res Rev. 2007 Dec;64(6):650-72 - PubMed
  6. Health Care Manage Rev. 2008 Jan-Mar;33(1):2-12 - PubMed
  7. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Jul-Aug;15(4):408-23 - PubMed
  8. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jul-Aug;16(4):465-70 - PubMed
  9. J Biomed Inform. 2010 Feb;43(1):159-72 - PubMed
  10. Int J Med Inform. 2010 Feb;79(2):71-80 - PubMed
  11. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010 Nov-Dec;17(6):617-23 - PubMed
  12. Cogn Technol Work. 2011 Mar;13(1):11-29 - PubMed
  13. Int J Med Inform. 2011 Jul;80(7):466-79 - PubMed
  14. Int J Ind Ergon. 2011 Jul 1;41(4):370-379 - PubMed
  15. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 Nov-Dec;18(6):812-9 - PubMed
  16. J Patient Saf. 2011 Dec;7(4):193-203 - PubMed
  17. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2012 Nov-Dec;8(6):509-22 - PubMed
  18. Int J Med Inform. 2012 Aug;81(8):539-48 - PubMed
  19. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Nov-Dec;19(6):1050-8 - PubMed
  20. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2012 Sep 1;13(5):546-569 - PubMed
  21. Fam Pract Manag. 2012 Nov-Dec;19(6):23-30 - PubMed
  22. Int J Med Inform. 2013 Aug;82(8):665-75 - PubMed
  23. Nurs Adm Q. 2013 Apr-Jun;37(2):136-43 - PubMed
  24. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Feb;21(e1):e78-83 - PubMed
  25. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Aug 12;13:88 - PubMed
  26. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Jul-Aug;21(4):742-50 - PubMed
  27. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Nov 27;13:129 - PubMed
  28. Yearb Med Inform. 2014 Aug 15;9:58-66 - PubMed
  29. Int J Med Inform. 2015 Jan;84(1):36-47 - PubMed
  30. Pediatrics. 2015 Mar;135(3):e756-68 - PubMed
  31. Nurs Adm Q. 2015 Apr-Jun;39(2):183-4 - PubMed
  32. Comput Inform Nurs. 2015 Mar;33(3):99-107; quiz E1 - PubMed
  33. Comput Inform Nurs. 2015 May;33(5):189-98; quiz E1 - PubMed
  34. Int J Med Inform. 2016 Feb;86:82-90 - PubMed
  35. Appl Clin Inform. 2016 Jul 20;7(3):682-92 - PubMed
  36. Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst. 2010 Apr 10;2010:2123-2132 - PubMed
  37. Rand Health Q. 2014 Dec 1;3(4):1 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support