4.1 Article

Acceptance of clinical decision support systems in Saudi healthcare organisations

Journal

INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT
Volume 39, Issue 1, Pages 86-106

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/02666669211025076

Keywords

clinical decision support systems; decision support; healthcare; Saudi Arabia; information systems theories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the factors influencing the acceptance of CDSS by physicians in Saudi Arabia. The findings suggest that all factors of UTAUT and TTF, except for social influence, influence the acceptance of CDSS by GPs. In-depth interviews also revealed additional factors such as accessibility, patient satisfaction, informativeness, connectedness, communication and shared knowledge, privacy and security, and perceived risk.
Applications of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have become essential for physicians seeking to make appropriate decisions. The implementation of CDSS, however, is complicated if the factors affecting physician's acceptance are not recognised. This study aims to explore the various factors that may influence the acceptance of CDSS in Saudi Arabia. A qualitative method was used to collect data from interviews with 54 GPs, with interviews conducted in three stages. The study then integrated the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and Task-Technology Fit (TTF) models to communicate the findings. It is suggested that all factors of both UTAUT and TTF influence acceptance of CDSS by GPs, with the sole exception of the social influence factor. Some additional factors were also discovered by means of in-depth interviews, including accessibility, patient satisfaction, informativeness (increased knowledge), connectedness (informing patients), communication and shared knowledge, privacy and security, and perceived risk (functional performance risk and time risk). The study thus offers a new insight of the factors influencing GPs' acceptance of CDSS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available