Advertisement

Health and Technology

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 797–804 | Cite as

The evaluation of users’ satisfaction with the Social Security Electronic System in Iran

  • Reza Khajouei
  • Fatemeh FarahaniEmail author
Original Paper
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

Assessing users’ satisfaction with the user interface of Healthcare Information System in order to determine their acceptance rate should be highlighted, especially at the early stages of its implementation. This study aimed to evaluate the users’ satisfaction with Social Security Electronic System (SSES), as a widely used HIS in Iran. The population of this study composed of 327 users among whom 176 were randomly selected. An adapted version of Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ) was used for collecting data. Data were analyzed using t-test, ANOVA, Spearman, Man Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis. In general, 140 subjects answered the questionnaire. The users’ mean scores of satisfaction with different aspects of usability and their overall satisfaction were 56.00 ± 13.00 and 3.01 ± 1.15, respectively, indicating a medium satisfaction. Overall satisfaction and satisfaction with different aspects of usability had no significant relationship with gender, age, education degree, and working experience with computers (p > 0.05). No significant relationship was observed between overall satisfaction and working experience with SSES (p > 0.05). However, the users’ satisfaction with different aspects of usability was significantly related to experience with HISs and SSES (p < 0.05). In addition, the overall satisfaction was significantly related to experience with HISs (p < 0.05). Based on the results, the users were relatively satisfied with the system. Thus, a user centered design is recommended to improve satisfaction by addressing several modifications such as providing an easier documentation process, using lower keystrockes and fewer screens, displaying appropriate messages, providing pop-ups, guiding the users, correcting the errors, and adding search functionalities.

Keywords

User satisfaction Usability evaluation Hospital information systems 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the users who participated in this study. Moreover, special thanks go to Laleh Tajaddini, the head of Information Technology Center of Payambare-Aazam Social Security Hospital in Kerman, for her cooperation and provision of the necessary facilities.

Authors’ contribution

Both authors equally contributed to the design of the study, data collection and analysis, and interpretation of the results. Furthermore, they read and confirmed the final version of the submitted manuscript.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from the funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in this study.

Ethical considerations

The official permission was obtained from the Social Security Organization headquarter before performing the study. Further, the present study was approved by the System Governance Office of this organizations (No: 168/95/15391 and identifier: 7575999) and the Ethics Committee of Kerman University of Medical Sciences (No: IR.KMU.REC.1396.1409).

References

  1. 1.
    Banet GA, et al. Effects of implementing computerized practitioner order entry and nursing documentation on nursing workflow in an emergency department. JHIM. 2006;20(2):45.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Horsky J, et al. A framework for analyzing the cognitive complexity of computer-assisted clinical ordering. J Biomed Inform. 2003;36(1):4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Horsky J, Kuperman GJ, Patel VL. Comprehensive analysis of a medication dosing error related to CPOE. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(4):377–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bevan N, Carter J, Harker S. ISO 9241-11 revised: What have we learnt about usability since 1998?. In: International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer; 2015.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang J, Walji MF. TURF: toward a unified framework of EHR usability. J Biomed Inform. 2011;44(6):1056–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walji MF, et al. Are three methods better than one? A comparative assessment of usability evaluation methods in an EHR. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(5):361–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bates DW, et al. Reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8(4):299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Han YY, et al. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics. 2005;116(6):1506–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ives B, Olson MH, Baroudi JJ. The measurement of user information satisfaction. Commun ACM. 1983;26(10):785–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chin WW, Lee MK. A proposed model and measurement instrument for the formation of IS satisfaction: the case of end-user computing satisfaction. In: Proceedings of the twenty first international conference on Information systems. Association for Information Systems; 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lucas HC, Ginzberg MJ, Schultz RL. Information systems implementation: testing a structural model. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corp; 1990. pp. 43-39.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yusof MM, et al. An evaluation framework for Health Information Systems: human, organization and technology-fit factors (HOT-fit). Int J Med Inform. 2008;77(6):386–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Delone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manag Inf Syst. 2003;19(4):9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mahmood MA, et al. Variables affecting information technology end-user satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2000;52(4):751–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scheepers R, Scheepers H, Ngwenyama OK. Contextual influences on user satisfaction with mobile computing: findings from two healthcare organizations. Eur J Inf Syst. 2006;15(3):261–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gatian AW. Is user satisfaction a valid measure of system effectiveness? Inf Manag. 1994;26(3):119–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suh K, Kim S, Lee J. End-user's disconfirmed expectations and the success of information systems. Inf Resour Manag J. 1994;7(4):30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tse DK, Wilton PC. Models of consumer satisfaction formation: an extension. J Mark Res. 1988:204–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beuscart-Zéphir MC, et al. Impact of CPOE on doctor–nurse cooperation for the medication ordering and administration process. Int J Med Inform. 2005;74(7):629–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khajouei R, de Jongh D, Jaspers MW. Usability evaluation of a computerized physician order entry for medication ordering. In: MIE. 2009.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khajouei R, Jaspers MW. The impact of CPOE medication systems' design aspects on usability, workflow and medication orders. Methods Inf Med. 2010;49(1):3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khajouei R, et al. Effect of predefined order sets and usability problems on efficiency of computerized medication ordering. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(10):690–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khajouei R, Abbasi R. Evaluating nurses' satisfaction with two nursing information systems. CIN. 2017;35(6):307–14.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Safdari R, et al. Comparing four softwares based on ISO 9241 part 10. J Med Syst. 2012;36(5):2787–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alipour J, et al. Users view about hospital information system in children's hospital, Bandar Abbas, Iran. 2010.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee TT, et al. Factors affecting the use of nursing information systems in Taiwan. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50(2):170–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marasovic C, et al. Attitudes of Australian nurses toward the implementation of a clinical information system. Comput Nurs. 1997;15(2):91–8.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mazzoleni M, et al. Assessing users' satisfaction through perception of usefulness and ease of use in the daily interaction with a hospital information system. In: Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium. American Medical Informatics Association; 1996.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Palm J-M, et al. Determinants of user satisfaction with a Clinical Information System. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings. American Medical Informatics Association; 2006.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sittig DF, Kuperman GJ, Fiskio J. Evaluating physician satisfaction regarding user interactions with an electronic medical record system. In: Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium. American Medical Informatics Association; 1999.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sleutel M, Guinn M. As good as it gets? Going online with a clinical information system. Comput Nurs. 1999;17(4):181–5.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bahnassy A. Nurses’ satisfaction with the use of health information system (HIS) in a Saudi tertiary care medical center. IJARSSE. 2015;5(5):56–61.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Khajouei R, et al. Clinicians satisfaction with CPOE ease of use and effect on clinicians’ workflow, efficiency and medication safety. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(5):297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kim S-Y. Factors affecting the degree of satisfaction for nursing information system. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2005;122:523–6. Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Strudwick G, et al. A scoping review of research involving nurses and electronic health records in middle eastern countries. Int Arch Nurs Health Care. 2015;(1):012.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    DeLone WH, McLean ER. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res. 1992;3(1):60–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pai F-Y, Huang K-I. Applying the technology acceptance model to the introduction of healthcare information systems. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2011;78(4):650–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yen P-Y. Health information technology usability evaluation: methods, models, and measures. Columbia University; 2010.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci. 2000;46(2):186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rusli NM, Hassan S, Liau NE. Usability analysis of students information system in a public university. JETEAS. 2013;4(6):806–10.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lee F, et al. Implementation of physician order entry: user satisfaction and self-reported usage patterns. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1996;3(1):42–55.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gress TW, et al. Contrasting Views of Physicians and Nurses about an Inpatient Computer-based Provider Order-entry System. 1999.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Michel-Verkerke MB. Information quality of a nursing information system depends on the nurses: a combined quantitative and qualitative evaluation. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(10):662–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Davis SA, Bostrom RP. Training end users: an experimental investigation of the roles of the computer interface and training methods. MIS Q. 1993:61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Soliman KS, Mao E, Frolick MN. Measuring user satisfaction with data warehouses: an exploratory study. Inf Manag. 2000;37(3):103–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Quaddus M, Intrapairot A. Management policies and the diffusion of data warehouse: a case study using system dynamics-based decision support system. Decis Support Syst. 2001;31(2):223–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Aggelidis VP, Chatzoglou PD. Hospital information systems: measuring end user computing satisfaction (EUCS). J Biomed Inform. 2012;45(3):566–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Park KS, Lim CH. A structured methodology for comparative evaluation of user interface designs using usability criteria and measures. Int J Ind Ergon. 1999;23(5):379–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Benbunan-Fich R. Using protocol analysis to evaluate the usability of a commercial web site. Inf Manag. 2001;39(2):151–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lin JC-C, Lu H. Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a web site. Int J Inf Manag. 2000;20(3):197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rushinek A, Rushinek SF. Accounting and billing software and user reactions: an interactive diagnostic audit trail. Inf Manag. 1985;9(1):9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shneiderman B. Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Pearson Education India; 2010.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Norman KL. Development of a Tool Measuring User Satisfaction of the Human-Computer Interface John P. Chin Virginia A. Diehl.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ribière V, et al. Hospital information systems quality: a customer satisfaction assessment tool. in Systems Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE; 1999.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gelderman M. The relation between user satisfaction, usage of information systems and performance. Inf Manag. 1998;34(1):11–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IUPESM and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Informatics Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in HealthKerman University of Medical SciencesKermanIran
  2. 2.Department of Health Information Sciences, Faculty of Management and Medical Information SciencesKerman University of Medical SciencesKermanIran
  3. 3.Health Service Management Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in HealthKerman University of Medical SciencesKermanIran

Personalised recommendations