International Journal of Medical Informatics
Volume 81, Issue 2 , Pages 88-97, February 2012

Do hospital physicians’ attitudes change during PACS implementation? A cross-sectional acceptance study

  • Bram Pynoo

      Affiliations

    • Ghent University Hospital, Radiology and Medical Imaging, Belgium
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: UZ Gent-Dienst ICT (1AG), De Pintelaan 185, B-9000 Gent. Tel.: +32 9 332 65 28; fax: +32 9 332 49 60.
  • ,
  • Pieter Devolder

      Affiliations

    • Ghent University Hospital, Radiology and Medical Imaging, Belgium
  • ,
  • Wouter Duyck

      Affiliations

    • Ghent University, Department of Experimental Psychology, Belgium
  • ,
  • Johan van Braak

      Affiliations

    • Ghent University, Department of Educational Studies, Belgium
  • ,
  • Bart Sijnave

      Affiliations

    • Ghent University Hospital, Department of ICT, Belgium
  • ,
  • Philippe Duyck

      Affiliations

    • Ghent University Hospital, Radiology and Medical Imaging, Belgium

Received 10 November 2010; received in revised form 13 October 2011; accepted 16 October 2011. published online 09 November 2011.

Highlights

► PACS’ ease of use is the main driver for physicians to start using PACS. ► The drivers for PACS acceptance vary over time. ► Support by peers and hospital management is very important for PACS-acceptance. ► Focus training first on basic tasks; introduce advanced functionalities gradually. ► Multiple measurements uncover dynamics underlying the acceptance process.

Abstract 

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to gain a better insight into the reasons why hospital physicians accept and use a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS). Two research questions are put forward, pertaining to (1) factors that contribute to physicians’ acceptance of PACS, and (2) whether these factors change as physicians gain experience in using PACS.

Methods

Questionnaires were administered at three moments in time during the PACS implementation process in a private hospital: just before its introduction (T1), four months later (T2), and about fifteen months after the introduction of PACS (T3). The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology was chosen as the theoretical framework for this study. Hence, the following scales were measured: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, behavioral intention, and self-reported frequency of use.

Results

Forty-six usable responses were obtained at T1, 52 at T2 and 61 at T3. Three variables directly influenced PACS acceptance (measured as behavioral intention and use of PACS): effort expectancy, performance expectancy, and social influence; and their influence evolved over time. Effort expectancy was of particular importance at T1, whereas performance expectancy influenced acceptance at T2 and T3; social influence was the only consistent predictor of PACS acceptance at all times. Variance explained in behavioral intention ranged from .26 at T1 to .58 at T3.

Conclusions

In this setting, the main motivation for physicians to start using PACS is effort expectancy, whereas performance expectancy only becomes important after the physicians started using PACS. It is also very important that physicians perceive that their social environment encourages the use of PACS.

Keywords: PACS (radiology), Attitude to computers, Medical staff hospital, Acceptance process

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1386-5056(11)00217-6

doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.10.007

International Journal of Medical Informatics
Volume 81, Issue 2 , Pages 88-97, February 2012