4.7 Article

Electronic health records adoption: Do institutional pressures and organizational culture matter

期刊

TECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY
卷 65, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101531

关键词

Electronic health records; Institutional pressures; Health records adoption; Organizational culture; Ghana

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [:71701191]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the impact of institutional pressures on the adoption intention of electronic health records, finding significant relationships between institutional pressures and attitude as well as adoption intention, with organizational culture playing a significant moderating role in the relationship between practitioners' attitude and adoption intention.
Electronic health records have recently received increasing attention from researchers and practitioners. Nonetheless, research exploring the antecedents of adoption is limited. In this study, drawing on the institutional theory and theory of planned behavior, we propose a model to empirically investigate the salience of institutional pressures (i.e., coercive, normative and mimetic) to attitude towards electronic health records and adoption intention, and how such effects are moderated by organizational culture. The study used data drawn from a field survey conducted with 322 health practitioners to empirically test the proposed research model. The results revealed the significant effects of institutional pressures on attitude towards electronic health records. Moreover, attitude was also indicated to have a significant positive relationship with practitioner's intention to adopt electronic health records. In addition, it was revealed that, organizational culture significantly moderates the relationship between practitioners' attitude towards electronic health records and adoption intention. The implications of the study findings are discoursed on, and suggestions for future research and policy are succinctly spelt out.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据