Journal of Medical Systems

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 241–277 | Cite as

Systematic Review of Factors Influencing the Adoption of Information and Communication Technologies by Healthcare Professionals

  • Marie-Pierre GagnonEmail author
  • Marie Desmartis
  • Michel Labrecque
  • Josip Car
  • Claudia Pagliari
  • Pierre Pluye
  • Pierre Frémont
  • Johanne Gagnon
  • Nadine Tremblay
  • France Légaré
Original Paper


This systematic review of mixed methods studies focuses on factors that can facilitate or limit the implementation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in clinical settings. Systematic searches of relevant bibliographic databases identified studies about interventions promoting ICT adoption by healthcare professionals. Content analysis was performed by two reviewers using a specific grid. One hundred and one (101) studies were included in the review. Perception of the benefits of the innovation (system usefulness) was the most common facilitating factor, followed by ease of use. Issues regarding design, technical concerns, familiarity with ICT, and time were the most frequent limiting factors identified. Our results suggest strategies that could effectively promote the successful adoption of ICT in healthcare professional practices.


Systematic review Adoption factors Information and communication technologies (ICTs) ICT adoption by healthcare professionals 



This work was supported in part by a synthesis grant from CIHR (project number: SRR - 79141) and also by a seed grant from the CHUQ research centre to Marie-Pierre Gagnon. We want to thank Carrie Anna McGinn and Sonya Grenier who helped us in the update of the review.


  1. 1.
    Health Canada, Towards a healthy future: Second report on the health of Canadians. Federal. Provincial and Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health, Ottawa, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Car, J., and Sheikh, A., Email consultations in health care: 2–acceptability and safe application. BMJ 329:439–442, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berner, E. S., Detmer, D. E., and Simborg, D., Will the wave finally break? A brief view of the adoption of electronic medical records in the United States. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 12:3–7, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brooks, R. G., and Menachemi, N., Physicians’ use of email with patients: factors influencing electronic communication and adherence to best practices. J. Med. Internet Res. 8:e2, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yarbrough, A. K., and Smith, T. B., Technology acceptance among physicians: a new take on TAM. Med. Care Res. Rev. 64:650–672, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aarts, J., Doorewaard, H., and Berg, M., Understanding implementation: the case of a computerized physician order entry system in a large Dutch university medical center. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 11:207–216, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lorenzi, N. M., Riley, R. T., Blyth, A. J., Southon, G., and Dixon, B. J., Antecedents of the people and organizational aspects of medical informatics: review of the literature. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 4:79–93, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pagliari, C., Implementing the National Programme for IT: what can we learn from the Scottish experience? Inform. Prim. Care. 13:105–111, 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anderson, J. G., Social, ethical and legal barriers to E-health. Int. J. Med. Inform. 76:480–483, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson, K. B., Barriers that impede the adoption of pediatric information technology. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 155:1374–1379, 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kukafka, R., Johnson, S. B., Linfante, A., and Allegrante, J. P., Grounding a new information technology implementation framework in behavioral science: a systematic analysis of the literature on IT use. J. Biomed. Inform. 36:218–227, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yusof, M. M., Stergioulas, L., and Zugic, J., Health information systems adoption: findings from a systematic review. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 129:262–266, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gagnon, M. P., Legare, F., Labrecque, M., Fremont, P., Pluye, P., Gagnon, J., Car, J., Pagliari, C., Desmartis, M., Turcot, L., and Gravel, K., Interventions for promoting information and communication technologies adoption in healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. CD006093, 2009.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pluye, P., Gagnon, M. P., Griffiths, F., and Johnson-Lafleur, J., A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews. Int. J. Nursing Stud. 46:529–546, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P. A., and Rubin, H. R., Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 282:1458–1465, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis, F. D., Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13:319–340, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rogers, E. M., The diffusion of innovations, 4th edition. The Free Press, New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saillour-Glenisson, F., and Michel, P., Facteurs individuels et collectifs associés à l’application des recommandations de pratique clinique par le corps médical. Revue de la littérature. Rev. Epidemiol. Sante Publ. 51:65–80, 2003.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gravel, K., Légaré, F., and Graham, I. D., Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: A systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Implement. Sci. 1:16, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Légaré, F., O’Connor, A. M., Graham, I. D., Saucier, D., Côté, L., Blais, J., Cauchon, M., and Paré, L., Primary health care professionals’ views on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework in practice. Patient Educ. Counsel. 63:380–390, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Légaré, F., Ratté, S., Gravel, K., and Graham, I. D., Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ. Counsel. 73:526–535, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mays, N., Pope, C., and Popay, J., Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 10(suppl. 1):S1:6–S1:20, 2005.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Popay, J., Arai, L., Petticrew, M., Roen, K., and Duffy, S., Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. In Methods Briefing 22. 2007.
  24. 24.
    Abate, M. A., Shumway, J. M., and Jacknowitz, A. I., Use of two online services as drug information sources for health professionals. Methods Inf. Med. 31:153–158, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abdolrasulnia, M., Collins, B. C., Casebeer, L., Wall, T., Spettell, C., Ray, M. N., Weissman, N. W., and Allison, J. J., Using email reminders to engage physicians in an Internet-based CME intervention. BMC Med. Educ. 4:17, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abubakar, I., Williams, C. J., and McEvoy, M., Development and evaluation of a hand held computer based on-call pack for health protection out of hours duty: a pilot study. BMC Public Health 5:35, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Adaskin, E. J., Hughes, L., McMullan, P., McLean, M., and McMorris, D., The impact of computerization on nursing - an interview study of users and facilitators. Comput. Nurs. 12:141–148, 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Adler, M. D., Duggan, A., Ogborn, C. J., and Johnson, K. B., Assessment of a computer-aided instructional program for the pediatric emergency department. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 6–10, 2003.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    af Klercker, T., and Zetraeus, S., Dilemmas in introducing World Wide Web-based information technology in primary care: a focus group study. Fam. Pract. 15:205–210, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Al Farsi, M., and West, D. J., Jr., Use of electronic medical records in Oman and physician satisfaction. J. Med. Syst. 30:17–22, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Allen, M. J., Kaufman, D. M., Barrett, A., Paterson, G., Sargeant, J., and McLeod, R., Self-reported effects of computer workshops on physicians’ computer use. J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 20:20–26, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Al-Qirim, N. A. Y., Teledermatology: the case of adoption and diffusion of telemedicine health Waikato in New Zealand. Telemed. J. e-Health. 9:167–177, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Andre, B., Ringdal, G. I., Loge, J. H., Rannestad, T., and Kaasa, S., The importance of key personnel and active management for successful implementation of computer-based technology in palliative care: results from a qualitative study. Comput. Inform. Nurs. 26:183–189, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Angier, J. J., Beck, S. L., and Eyre, H. J., Use of the PDQ system in a clinical setting. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 78:15–22, 1990.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bailey, D. W. Nurse work and the computerized patient record. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2000.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Barrett, M., Larson, A., Carville, K., and Ellis, I., Challenges faced in implementation of a telehealth enabled chronic wound care system. Rural Remote Health 9:1154, 2009.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Barsukiewicz, C. K., Computerized medical records: physician response to new technology. The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, 1998.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bartlett, E. S., Maley, J. E., and Fajardo, L. L., Radiology residency eCurriculum developed in-house: evaluation of benefits and weaknesses. Acad. Radiol. 10:657–663, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bossen, C., Evaluation of a computerized problem-oriented medical record in a hospital department: does it support daily clinical practice? Int. J. Med. Inform. 76:592–600, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bossen, C., Test the artefact-Develop the organization. The implementation of an electronic medication plan. Int. J. Med. Inform. 76:13–21, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cabell, C. H., Schardt, C., Sanders, L., Corey, G. R., and Keitz, S. A., Resident utilization of information technology: a randomized trial of clinical question formation. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 16:838–844, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cheng, G. Y., Educational workshop improved information-seeking skills, knowledge, attitudes and the search outcome of hospital clinicians: a randomised controlled trial. Health Info. Libr. J. 20(Suppl 1):22–33, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chisolm, D. J., McAlearney, A. S., Veneris, S., Fisher, D., Holtzlander, M., and McCoy, K. S., The role of computerized order sets in pediatric inpatient asthma treatment. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 17:199–206, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Connelly, D. P., Werth, G. R., Dean, D. W., Hultman, B. K., and Thompson, T. R., Physician use of an NICU laboratory reporting system. Proc. Annu. Symp. Comput. Appl. Med. Care. 8–12, 1992.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Crosson, J. C., Isaacson, N., Lancaster, D., McDonald, E. A., Schueth, A. J., DiCicco-Bloom, B., Newman, J. L., Wang, C. J., and Bell, D. S., Variation in electronic prescribing implementation among twelve ambulatory practices. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 23:364–371, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Crowe, B., and Sim, L., Implementation of a radiology information system/picture archiving and communication system and an image transfer system at a large public teaching hospital - Assessment of success of adoption by clinicians. J. Telemed. Telecare 10:25–27, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cumbers, B. J., and Donald, A., Using biomedical databases in everyday clinical practice: the Front-Line Evidence-Based Medicine project in North Thames. Health Libr. Rev. 15:255–265, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    D’Alessandro, D. M., D’Alessandro, M. P., Galvin, J. R., Kash, J. B., Wakefield, D. S., and Erkonen, W. E., Barriers to rural physician use of a digital health sciences library. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 86:583–593, 1998.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    D’Alessandro, D. M., Kreiter, C. D., and Peterson, M. W., An evaluation of information-seeking behaviors of general pediatricians. Pediatrics 113:64–69, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Di Pietro, T., Coburn, G., Dharamshi, N., Doran, D., Mylopoulos, J., Kushniruk, A., Nagle, L., Sidani, S., Tourangeau, A., Laurie-Shaw, B., Lefebre, N., Reid-Haughian, C., Carryer, J., and McArthur, G., What nurses want: diffusion of an innovation. J. Nurs. Care Qual. 23:140–146, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Doolin, B., Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system. Inf. Syst. J. 14:343–362, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dornan, T., Carroll, C., and Parboosingh, J., An electronic learning portfolio for reflective continuing professional development. Med. Educ. 36:767–769, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Eley, D., Hegney, D., Wollaston, A., Fahey, P., Miller, P., McKay, M., and Wollaston, J., Triage nurse perceptions of the use, reliability and acceptability of the Toowoomba Adult Triage Trauma Tool (TATTT). Accident Emerg. Nurs. 13:54–60, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Firby, P. A., Luker, K. A., and Caress, A. L., Nurses’ opinions of the introduction of computer-assisted learning for use in patient education. J. Adv. Nurs. 16:987–995, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Galligioni, E., Berloffa, F., Caffo, O., Tonazzolli, G., Ambrosini, G., Valduga, F., Eccher, C., Ferro, A., and Forti, S., Development and daily use of an electronic oncological patient record for the total management of cancer patients: 7 years’ experience. Ann. Oncol. 20:349–352, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Granlien, M. F., Hertzum, M., and Gudmundsen, J., The gap between actual and mandated use of an electronic medication record three years after deployment. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 136:419–424, 2008.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Guan, J., Tregonning, S., and Keenan, L., Social interaction and participation: formative evaluation of online CME modules. J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 28:172–179, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hains, I. M., Fuller, J. M., Ward, R. L., and Pearson, S. A., Standardizing care in medical oncology: are Web-based systems the answer? Cancer 115:5579–5588, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Halamka, J., Aranow, M., Ascenzo, C., Bates, D. W., Berry, K., Debor, G., Fefferman, J., Glaser, J., Heinold, J., Stanley, J., Stone, D. L., Sullivan, T. E., Tripathi, M., and Wilkinson, B., E-Prescribing collaboration in Massachusetts: early experiences from regional prescribing projects. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 13:239–244, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Haynes, R. B., McKibbon, K. A., Walker, C. J., Ryan, N., Fitzgerald, D., and Ramsden, M. F., Online access to MEDLINE in clinical settings. A study of use and usefulness. Ann Intern Med. 112:78–84, 1990.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hibbert, D., Mair, F. S., May, C. R., Boland, A., O’Connor, J., Capewell, S., and Angus, R. M., Health professionals’ responses to the introduction of a home telehealth service. J. Telemed. Telecare 10:226–230, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hier, D. B., Rothschild, A., LeMaistre, A., and Keeler, J., Differing faculty and housestaff acceptance of an electronic health record one year after implementation. Medinfo 11:1300–1303, 2004.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hou, I. C., Chang, P., and Wang, T. Y., Qualitative analysis of end user computing strategy and experiences in promoting nursing informatics in Taiwan. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 122:613–615, 2006.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Jaques, E. D., The impact of selected factors in nurses’ attitudes toward bedside computers. Florida International University, 2002.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Joos, D., Chen, Q., Jirjis, J., and Johnson, K. B., An electronic medical record in primary care: impact on satisfaction, work efficiency and clinic processes. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 394–398, 2006.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jotkowitz, A., Oh, J., Tu, C., Elkin, D., Pollack, L. A., and Kerpen, H., The use of personal digital assistants among medical residents. Med. Teach. 28:382–384, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jousimaa, J., Kunnamo, I., and Makela, M., An implementation study of the PDRD primary care computerized guidelines. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care 16:149–153, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Joy, S., and Benrubi, G., The personal digital assistant in an obstetrics and gynecology residency program. Prim. Care Update Ob/Gyns 9:238–242, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kamadjeu, R. M., Tapang, E. M., and Moluh, R. N., Designing and implementing an electronic health record system in primary care practice in sub-Saharan Africa: a case study from Cameroon. Inform. Prim. Care. 13:179–186, 2005.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Katz, S. J., Moyer, C. A., Cox, D. T., and Stern, D. T., Effect of a triage-based E-mail system on clinic resource use and patient and physician satisfaction in primary care - A randomized controlled trial. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 18:736–744, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Keshavjee, K., Troyan, S., Holbrook, A. M., and VanderMolen, D., Measuring the success of electronic medical record implementation using electronic and survey data. Proc. AMIA Symp. 309–313, 2001.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Koivunen, M., Hatonen, H., and Valimaki, M., Barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of an interactive Internet-portal application for patient education in psychiatric hospitals. Patient Educ. Counsel. 70:412–419, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kouri, P., Turunen, H., and Palomaki, T., ‘Maternity clinic on the net service’ and its introduction into practice: experiences of maternity-care professionals. Midwifery 21:177–189, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lai, F., Macmillan, J., Daudelin, D. H., and Kent, D. M., The potential of training to increase acceptance and use of computerized decision support systems for medical diagnosis. Hum. Fact. 48:95–108, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Lapinsky, S. E., Wax, R., Showalter, R., Martinez-Motta, J. C., Hallett, D., Mehta, S., Burry, L., and Stewart, T. E., Prospective evaluation of an internet-linked handheld computer critical care knowledge access system. Crit. Care 8:R414–R421, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lapointe, L., and Rivard, S., Getting physicians to accept new information technology: insights from case studies. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 174:1573–1578, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Larcher, B., Arisi, E., Berloffa, F., Demichelis, F., Eccher, C., Galligioni, E., Galvagni, M., Martini, G., Sboner, A., Tomio, L., Zumiani, G., Graiff, A., and Forti, S., Analysis of user-satisfaction with the use of a teleconsultation system in oncology. Med. Inform. Internet Med. 28:73–84, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Lee, T. T., Mills, M. E., and Lu, M. H., The multimethod evaluation of a nursing information system in taiwan. Comput. Inform. Nurs. 27:245–253, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Lee, T. T., Nursing administrators’ experiences in managing PDA use for inpatient units. Comput. Inform. Nurs. 24:280–287, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Lee, T. T., Adopting a personal digital assistant system: application of Lewin’s change theory. J. Adv. Nurs. 55:487–496, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Leon, S. A., Fontelo, P., Green, L., Ackerman, M., and Liu, F., Evidence-based medicine among internal medicine residents in a community hospital program using smart phones. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 7:5, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Likourezos, A., Chalfin, D. B., Murphy, D. G., Sommer, B., Darcy, K., and Davidson, S. J., Physician and nurse satisfaction with an Electronic Medical Record system. J. Emerg. Med. 27:419–424, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Marcy, T. W., Kaplan, B., Connolly, S. W., Michel, G., Shiffman, R. N., and Flynn, B. S., Developing a decision support system for tobacco use counselling using primary care physicians. Inform. Prim. Care. 16:101–109, 2008.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Magrabi, F., Westbrook, J. I., and Coiera, E. W., What factors are associated with the integration of evidence retrieval technology into routine general practice settings? Int. J. Med. Inform. 76:701–709, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Martinez, M. A., Kind, T., Pezo, E., and Pomerantz, K. L., An Evaluation of community health center adoption of online health information. Health Promot. Pract. 2007.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    May, C., Gask, L., Atkinson, T., Ellis, N., Mair, F., and Esmail, A., Resisting and promoting new technologies in clinical practice: the case of telepsychiatry. Soc Sci Med. 52:1889–1901, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    McAlearney, A. S., Schweikhart, S. B., and Medow, M. A., Organizational and physician perspectives about facilitating handheld computer use in clinical practice: results of a cross-site qualitative study. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 12:568–575, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Newton, C. R. G. N. D. P. F., A study of nurses’ attitudes and quality of documents in computer care planning. Nurs. Standard 9:35–39, 1995.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    O’Connell, R. T., Cho, C., Shah, N., Brown, K., and Shiffman, R. N., Take note(s): differential EHR satisfaction with two implementations under one roof. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 11:43–49, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Ovretveit, J., Scott, T., Rundall, T. G., Shortell, S. M., and Brommels, M., Improving quality through effective implementation of information technology in healthcare. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 19:259–266, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Pagliari, C., Clark, D., Hunter, K., Boyle, D., Cunningham, S., Morris, A., and Sullivan, F., DARTS 2000 online diabetes management system: formative evaluation in clinical practice. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 9:391–400, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Pare, G., Sicotte, C., and Jacques, H., The effects of creating psychological ownership on physicians’ acceptance of clinical information systems. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 13:197–205, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Popernack, M. L., A critical change in a day in the life of intensive care nurses: rising to the e-challenge of an integrated clinical information system. Crit. Care Nurs. Q. 29:362–375, 2006.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Pourasghar, F., Malekafzali, H., Koch, S., and Fors, U., Factors influencing the quality of medical documentation when a paper-based medical records system is replaced with an electronic medical records system: an Iranian case study. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 24:445–451, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Puffer, M. J., Ferguson, J. A., Wright, B. C., Osborn, J., Anshus, A. L., Cahill, B. P., Kamath, J., and Ryan, M. J., Partnering with clinical providers to enhance the efficiency of an EMR. J. Healthc. Inf. Manag. 21:24–32, 2007.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Pugh, G. E., and Tan, J. K., Computerized databases for emergency care: what impact on patient care? Methods Inf. Med. 33:507–513, 1994.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Rahimi, B., Timpka, T., Vimarlund, V., Uppugunduri, S., and Svensson, M., Organization-wide adoption of computerized provider order entry systems: a study based on diffusion of innovations theory. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 9:52, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Ranson, S. L., Boothby, J., Mazmanian, P. E., and Alvanzo, A., Use of personal digital assistants (PDAs) in reflection on learning and practice. J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 27:227–233, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Rousseau, N., McColl, E., Newton, J., Grimshaw, J., and Eccles, M., Practice based, longitudinal, qualitative interview study of computerised evidence based guidelines in primary care. Br. Med. J. 326:314, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Sicotte, C., Denis, J. L., Lehoux, P., and Champagne, F., The computer-based patient record challenges towards timeless and spaceless medical practice. J. Med. Syst. 22:237–256, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Smordal, O., and Gregory, J., Personal Digital Assistants in medical education and practice. J. Comput. Assist. Learning 19:320–329, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Soar, J., Ayres, D., and Van der Weegen, L., Achieving change and altering behaviour through direct doctor use of a hospital information system for order communications. Aust. Health Rev. 16:371–382, 1993.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Terry, A. L., Giles, G., Brown, J. B., Thind, A., and Stewart, M., Adoption of electronic medical records in family practice: the providers’ perspective. Fam. Med. 41:508–512, 2009.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Thoman, J., Struk, C., Spero, M. O., and Stricklin, M. L., Reflections from a point-of-care pilot nurse group experience. Home Healthc. Nurs. 19:779–784, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Topps, D., Thomas, R., and Crutcher, R., Introducing personal digital assistants to family physician teachers. Fam. Med. 35:55–59, 2003.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Toth-Pal, E., Wardh, I., Strender, L. E., and Nilsson, G., Implementing a clinical decision-support system in practice: a qualitative analysis of influencing attitudes and characteristics among general practitioners. Inform. Health Soc. Care. 33:39–54, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Travers, D., and Parham, T., Improving information access with an emergency department system. Proc. AMIA Annu. Fall Symp. 121–125, 1997.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Trivedi, M. H., Daly, E. J., Kern, J. K., Grannemann, B. D., Sunderajan, P., and Claassen, C. A., Barriers to implementation of a computerized decision support system for depression: an observational report on lessons learned in “real world” clinical settings. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 9:6, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Tuominen, K., and Crouse, B. J., Use of the World Wide Web by family practitioners. Minn. Med. 79:43–46, 1996.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Vanmeerbeek, M., Exploitation of electronic medical records data in primary health care. Resistances and solutions. Study in eight Walloon health care centres. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 110:42–48, 2004.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Verhoeven, F., Steehouder, M. F., Hendrix, R. M., and van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E., Factors affecting health care workers’ adoption of a website with infection control guidelines. Int. J. Med. Inform. 78:663–678, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Verwey, R., Claassen, R. A., Rutgers, M. J., and de Witte, L. P., The implementation of an Electronic Nursing Record in a general hospital in the Netherlands: lessons to learn. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 141:130–138, 2008.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Vishwanath, A., Brodsky, L., Shaha, S., Leonard, M., and Cimino, M., Patterns and changes in prescriber attitudes toward PDA prescription-assistive technology. Int. J. Med. Inform. 78:330–339, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Walji, M. F., Taylor, D., Langabeer, J. R., 2nd, and Valenza, J. A., Factors influencing implementation and outcomes of a dental electronic patient record system. J. Dent. Educ. 73:589–600, 2009.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Walter, G., Cleary, M., and Rey, J. M., Patterns of use, attitudes and expectations of mental health staff regarding computers. J. Qual. Clin. Pract. 20:20–23, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Watkins, J., A hospital-wide picture archiving and communication system (PACS): the views of users and providers of the radiology service at Hammersmith Hospital. Eur. J. Radiol. 32:106–112, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    West, C., Farmer, J., and Whyte, B., Implementing computerised workload data collection in rural primary health care. Aust. J. Rural Health 12:11–16, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Whittaker, A. A., Aufdenkamp, M., and Tinley, S., Barriers and facilitators to electronic documentation in a rural hospital. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 41:293–300, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Whitten, P., and Kuwahara, E., A multi-phase telepsychiatry programme in Michigan: organizational factors affecting utilization and user perceptions. J. Telemed. Telecare 10:254–261, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Wibe, T., Edwin, E., Husby, E. H., and Vedal, T., Implementation of nursing care plan in the Electronic Patient Record (EPR) findings and experiences. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 122:309–313, 2006.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Wilson, R., and Fulmer, T., Home health nurses’ initial experiences with wireless. Pen-based computing. Public Health Nurs. 15:225–232, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Yeh, S. H., Jeng, B., Lin, L. W., Ho, T. H., Hsiao, C. Y., Lee, L. N., and Chen, S. L., Implementation and evaluation of a nursing process support system for long-term care: a Taiwanese study. J. Clin. Nurs. 18:3089–3097, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Zheng, K., Padman, R., Johnson, M. P., and Diamond, H. S., Understanding technology adoption in clinical care: clinician adoption behavior of a point-of-care reminder system. Int. J. Med. Inform. 74:535–543, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Ammenwerth, E., Iller, C., and Mahler, C., IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology and individuals: a fit framework and a case study. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 6:3, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Yusof, M. M., Kuljis, J., Papazafeiropoulou, A., and Stergioulas, L. K., An evaluation framework for Health Information Systems: human, organization and technology-fit factors (HOT-fit). Int. J. Med. Inform. 77:386–398, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Callen, J. L., Braithwaite, J., and Westbrook, J. I., Contextual implementation model: a framework for assisting clinical information system implementations. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 15:255–262, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    May, C., Finch, T., Mair, F., Ballini, L., Dowrick, C., Eccles, M., Gask, L., MacFarlane, A., Murray, E., Rapley, T., Rogers, A., Treweek, S., Wallace, P., Anderson, G., Burns, J., and Heaven, B., Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model. BMC Health Serv. Res. 7:148, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Lavis, J., Davies, H., Oxman, A., Denis, J. L., Golden-Biddle, K., and Ferlie, E., Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 10(Suppl 1):35–48, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Menachemi, N., Burke, D. E., and Ayers, D. J., Factors affecting the adoption of telemedicine-a multiple adopter perspective. J. Med. Syst. 28:617–632, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Menachemi, N., Matthews, M., Ford, E. W., Hikmet, N., and Brooks, R. G., The relationship between local hospital IT capabilities and physician EMR adoption. J. Med. Syst. 33:329–335, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Chhanabhai, P., and Holt, A., Consumers are ready to accept the transition to online and electronic records if they can be assured of the security measures. MedGenMed 9:8, 2007.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Gagnon, M. P., Shaw, N., Sicotte, C., Mathieu, L., Leduc, Y., Duplantie, J., Maclean, J., and Legare, F., Users’ perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing EHR in Canada: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 4:20, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Vishwanath, A., Brodsky, L., and Shaha, S., Physician adoption of personal digital assistants (PDA): testing its determinants within a structural equation model. J. Health Commun. 14:77–95, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie-Pierre Gagnon
    • 1
    • 2
    • 8
    Email author
  • Marie Desmartis
    • 1
  • Michel Labrecque
    • 1
    • 3
  • Josip Car
    • 4
  • Claudia Pagliari
    • 5
  • Pierre Pluye
    • 6
  • Pierre Frémont
    • 1
    • 7
  • Johanne Gagnon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nadine Tremblay
    • 1
  • France Légaré
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Quebec University Hospital Research CentreQuébec CityCanada
  2. 2.Department of NursingLaval UniversityQuébec CityCanada
  3. 3.Department of Family and Emergency MedicineLaval UniversityQuébec CityCanada
  4. 4.Department of Primary Care and Social Medicine, Faculty of MedicineImperial College LondonLondonUK
  5. 5.Centre for Population Health SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  6. 6.Department of Family MedicineMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada
  7. 7.Department of RehabilitationLaval UniversityQuébec CityCanada
  8. 8.Centre de recherche du CHUQ, Hôpital St-François D’AssiseQuébec CityCanada

Personalised recommendations