Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Electronic medical records and patient engagement: examining post-adoptive and non-adoptive behavior

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Health and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to analyze the use of electronic medical records (EMRs) to improve patient engagement with health information. The study examined two distinct behaviors: continued use of EMRs and not using EMRs (non-adoptive behavior).

Methods

Secondary analysis of a cross-sectional national survey was conducted. The data were interpreted within the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model to assess the factors that influenced patients’ use of EMRs. Logistic regression analyses were also carried out to identify the significant predictors of non-adoptive behavior.

Results

The results of the study showed that the degree to which participants perceived the technology as easy to use, prior experience in accessing health data through technology, frequency of provider visits, and perceived poor health were indicators of continued use of EMRs. Logistic regression analyses revealed that gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, and type of insurance coverage were significant predictors of some of the barriers/preferences of non-adoptive behavior.

Conclusions

The study concluded that the UTAUT model can be effectively applied in healthcare settings to better understand patients’ use of EMRs and improve health information exchange between healthcare providers and patients. Further exploration is needed to differentiate between various behaviors to better meet the needs of patients and improve health outcomes. Overall, the findings highlight the importance of considering patient factors when implementing EMR systems in healthcare settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Guttmacher S, Tiersten D. Digital health records: a viewpoint on impact on medical practice and potential implications for both communication and future research. J Healthc Commun. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1179/1753806814Z.00000000062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Michas F. Impact of electronic health records on U.S. physicians’ practices 2018. 2020. In: Statista – The Statistics Portal. https://www.statista.com/statistics/614068/us-physicans-electronic-health-record-practice-impact/#statisticContainer. Accessed 2 Feb 2023.

  3. Saeed SA, Masters RM. Disparities in Health Care and the Digital divide. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-021-01274-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In: E-Health Records. 2021. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/E-Health/EHealthRecords. Accessed 15 Nov 2023.

  5. Steward C. Type of medical information patients would want access via EHRs in the U.S 2020. In: Statista – The Statistics Portal. 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1335858/information-patients-would-want-to-access-in-ehrs-in-the-us/. Accessed 2 Feb 2023.

  6. Ant Ozok A, Huijuan W, Garrido M, Pronovost PJ, Gurses AP. Usability and perceived usefulness of personal health records for preventive health care: a case study focusing on patients’ and primary care providers’ perspectives. Appl Ergon. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dhanireddy S, Walker J, Reisch L, Oster N, Delbanco T, Elmore JG. The urban underserved: attitudes towards gaining full access to electronic medical records. Health Expect. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Greiver M. 2015. Do electronic medical records improve quality of care?: No. Canadian Family Physician. 2015; 61:847–849.

  9. Rexhepi H, Åhlfeldt RM, Cajander Ã, Huvila I. Cancer patients’ attitudes and experiences of online access to their electronic medical records: a qualitative study. Health Inf J. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458216658778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ralston JD, Revere D, Robins LS, Goldberg HI. Patients’ experience with a diabetes support programme based on an interactive electronic medical record: qualitative study. BMJ. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Manca DP. Do electronic medical records improve quality of care? Yes. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61:846–7.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ancker JS, Nosal S, Hauser D, Way C, Calman N. Access policy and the digital divide in patient access to medical records. Health Policy Technol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2016.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sadoughi F, Khodaveisi T, Ahmadi H. The used theories for the adoption of electronic health record: a systematic literature review. Health Technol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-018-0277-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mukhopadhyay S, Basak R, Carpenter D, Reithel BJ. Patient use of online medical records: an application of technology acceptance framework. Inf Comput Secur. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICS-07-2019-0076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mishra A, Baker-Eveleth L, Gala P, Stachofsky J. Factors influencing actual usage of fitness tracking devices: empirical evidence from the UTAUT model. Health Mark Q. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/07359683.2021.1994170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang H, Tao D, Yu N, Qu X. Understanding consumer acceptance of healthcare wearable devices: an integrated model of UTAUT and TTF. Int J Med Inform. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cellucci LW, Cellucci T, Stanton M, Kerrigan D, Madrake M. Current status and future directions of EMR use in psychology clinics. Health Policy Technol. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2015.02.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Enaizan O, Zaidan AA, Alwi NHM, Zaidan BB, Alsalem MA, Albahri OS, Albahri AS. Electronic medical record systems: decision support examination framework for individual, security and privacy concerns using multi-perspective analysis. Health Technol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-018-0278-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kijsanayotin B, Pannarunothai S, Speedie SM. Factors influencing health information technology adoption in Thailand’s community health centers: applying the UTAUT model. Int J Med Inform. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.12.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shiferaw KB, Mehari EA. Modeling predictors of acceptance and use of electronic medical record system in a resource limited setting: using modified UTAUT model. Inf Med Unlocked. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2019.100182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Venkatesh V, Zhang X, Sykes TA. Doctors do too little technology: a longitudinal field study of an Electronic Healthcare System implementation. Inf Syst Res. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1110.0383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decis Sci. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ojinnaka CO, Adepoju OE. Racial and ethnic disparities in Health Information Technology Use and Associated Trends among individuals living with chronic Diseases. Popul Health Manag. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2021.0055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User Acceptance of Information Technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tan PJB. Applying the UTAUT to understand factors affecting the Use of English E-Learning websites in Taiwan. SAGE Open. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013503837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Venkatesh V, Thong J, Xu X. Unified theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: a synthesis and the Road ahead. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: MA:Addison-Wesley; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: four Longitudinal Field Studies. Manage Sci. 2000. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926. (Management Science).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fishbein M. A reasoned Action Approach to Health Promotion. Med Decis Making. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X08326092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Davis FD, Perceived, Usefulness. Perceived ease of Use, and user Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Charness N, Boot WR, Technology. Gaming, and Social networking. In: Schaie KW, Willis SL, editors. Handbook of the psychology of aging. Academic Press; 2016. pp. 389–407.

  33. Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The Technology Acceptance Model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yu C. Factors affecting individuals to adopt mobile banking: empirical evidence from the UTAUT model. J Electron Commer Res. 2012;13:2–104.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dwivedi YK, Rana NP, Jeyaraj A, Clement M, Williams MD. Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): towards a revised theoretical model. Inf Syst Front. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dwivedi YK, Rana NP, Tamilmani K, Raman R. A meta-analysis based modified unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (meta-UTAUT): a review of emerging literature. Curr Opin Psychol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jewer J. Patients’ intention to use online postings of ED wait times: a modified UTAUT model. Int J Med Inform. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Westat. (2020). Health Information National Trends Survey 5 (HINTS 5). In: National Cancer Institute. https://hints.cancer.gov/docs/methodologyreports/HINTS5_Cycle4_MethodologyReport.pdf. Accessed 13 Oct 2022.

  40. Kaazan P, Li T, Seow W, Bednarz J, Pipicella JL, Krishnaprasad K, Ng W, Williams A-J, Connor SJ, Andrews JM. Assessing effectiveness and patient perceptions of a novel electronic medical record for the management of inflammatory bowel disease. JGH Open. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Winkelman WJ, Lenord, Patient-Perceived Usefulness of Online Electronic Medical Records. Employing grounded theory in the development of information and Communication Technologies for Use by Patients living with chronic illness. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Alhasan A, Audah L, Ibrahim I, Al-Sharaa A, Al-Ogaili AS, Jabiry MM. A case-study to examine doctors’ intentions to use of IT healthcare devices in Iraq during COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Pervasive Comput. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPCC-10-2020-0175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Scheper H, Derogee R, Mahdad R, van der Wal RJP, Nelissen RGHH, Visser LG, de Boer MGJ. A mobile app for postoperative wound care after arthroplasty: ease of use and perceived usefulness. Int J Med Inform. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.05.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Langford AT, Orellana K, Buderer N. Use of Online Medical Records to support medical decision making: a cross-sectional study of US adults. J Health Commun. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2021.1983893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Koch-Weser S, Bradshaw YS, Gualtieri L, Gallagher SS. The internet as a Health Information source: findings from the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey and Implications for Health Communication. J Health Commun. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.522700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The author declares that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nevada, Reno, 1664 N Virginia St, Reno, NV, 89557, USA

    Zeynep Altinay

Authors
  1. Zeynep Altinay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The author confirms sole responsibility for the study conception, data analysis, interpretation of results, and writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeynep Altinay.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval and participant consent was not necessary as this study involved the use of a de-identified publicly available dataset.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing Interests

The author reports there are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Altinay, Z. Electronic medical records and patient engagement: examining post-adoptive and non-adoptive behavior. Health Technol. 13, 799–810 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-023-00778-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-023-00778-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation