Page - 71 - in Applied Interdisciplinary Theory in Health Informatics - Knowledge Base for Practitioners

Overall, when applied to health care settings, TAM and UTAUT failed to provide stable predictive capabilities for technology acceptance and use2. Teaching questions for reflection 1. What are the major differences between TAM and UTAUT? 2. How do TAM and UTAUT accommodate for socio-organizational or cultural factors for technology acceptance and technology usage? 3. How could you use TAM or UTAUT when preparing for the hospital-wide introduction of a nursing documentation system? References [1] R. Sharma, R. Mishra, A review of evaluation of theories and models of technology adoption, Indore Management Journal, 6(2) (2014),17-29. [2] V. Venkatesh, M. Morris, G. Davis, F. Davis, User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View, MIS Quarterly, 27(3) (2003),425-78. [3] F. Davis, User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(1993),475-87. [4] F. Davis, A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems - theory and results, PhD thesis (1985),Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [5] F. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly, 13(1989),319-9. [6] I. Ajzen, M. Fisbhein, Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research, Psychological Bulletin, 84(1977),888-918. [7] F. Davis, P. Bagozzi, P. Warshaw, User acceptance of computer technology - a comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science, 35(8) (1989),982-1003. [8] R. Holden, B. Karsh, The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care, J Biomed Inform, 43(1) (2010),159-72. [9] V. Venkatesh, F. Davis, A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies, Management Science, 46(2) (2000),186-204. [10] V. Venkatesh, H. Bala, Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions, Decision Science, 39(2) (2008),273-312. [11] N. Marangunić, A. Granić, Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013, Universal Access In The Information Society, 14(1) (2015),81-95. [12] A. Tubaishat, Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of electronic health records among nurses: Application of Technology Acceptance Model, Inform Health Soc Care, (2017),1-11. [13] M. Cimperman, M. Makovec Brencic, P. Trkman, Analyzing older users' home telehealth services acceptance behavior-applying an Extended UTAUT model, Int J Med Inform, 90(2016),22-31. [14] R. Ward, The application of technology acceptance and diffusion of innovation models in healthcare informatics, Health Policy and Technology, 2(4) (2013),222-8. [15] N. Gücin, Ö Berk, Technology Acceptance in Health Care: An Integrative Review of Predictive Factors and Intervention Programs, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195(2015),1698-704. 2 See also Chapter 16, “The NASSS Framework – a synthesis of multiple theories of technology implementation”. E.Ammenwerth /TechnologyAcceptanceModels inHealth Informatics: TAMandUTAUT 71