https://www.mdu.se/

mdu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Understanding Clinicians' Adoption of Mobile Health Tools: A Qualitative Review of the Most Used Frameworks
Anglia Ruskin Univ, East Rd, Cambridge CB1 1PT, England.;Univ Appl Sci Northwestern Switzerland, Brugg, Switzerland..ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8817-0148
Anglia Ruskin Univ, Innovat & Management Practice Res Ctr, Cambridge, England..
Anglia Ruskin Univ, Innovat & Management Practice Res Ctr, Cambridge, England.. (IPR)ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1567-3294
2020 (English)In: JMIR mhealth and uhealth, E-ISSN 2291-5222, Vol. 8, no 7, article id e18072Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Although there is a push toward encouraging mobile health (mHealth) adoption to harness its potential, there are many challenges that sometimes go beyond the technology to involve other elements such as social, cultural, and organizational factors. Objective: This review aimed to explore which frameworks are used the most, to understand clinicians' adoption of mHealth as well as to identify potential shortcomings in these frameworks. Highlighting these gaps and the main factors that were not specifically covered in the most frequently used frameworks will assist future researchers to include all relevant key factors. Methods: This review was an in-depth subanalysis of a larger systematic review that included research papers published between 2008 and 2018 and focused on the social, organizational, and technical factors impacting clinicians' adoption of mHealth. The initial systematic review included 171 studies, of which 50 studies used a theoretical framework. These 50 studies are the subject of this qualitative review, reflecting further on the frameworks used and how these can help future researchers design studies that investigate the topic of mHealth adoption more robustly. Results: The most commonly used frameworks were different forms of extensions of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; 17/50, 34%), the diffusion of innovation theory (DOI; 8/50, 16%), and different forms of extensions of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (6/50, 12%). Some studies used a combination of the TAM and DOI frameworks (3/50, 6%), whereas others used the consolidated framework for implementation research (3/50, 6%) and sociotechnical systems (STS) theory (2/50, 4%). The factors cited by more than 20% of the studies were usefulness, output quality, ease of use, technical support, data privacy, self-efficacy, attitude, organizational inner setting, training, leadership engagement, workload, and workflow fit. Most factors could be linked to one framework or another, but there was no single framework that could adequately cover all relevant and specific factors without some expansion. Conclusions: Health care technologies are generally more complex than tools that address individual user needs as they usually support patients with comorbidities who are typically treated by multidisciplinary teams who might even work in different health care organizations. This special nature of how the health care sector operates and its highly regulated nature, the usual budget deficits, and the interdependence between health care organizations necessitate some crucial expansions to existing theoretical frameworks usually used when studying adoption. We propose a shift toward theoretical frameworks that take into account implementation challenges that factor in the complexity of the sociotechnical structure of health care organizations and the interplay between the technical, social, and organizational aspects. Our consolidated framework offers recommendations on which factors to include when investigating clinicians' adoption of mHealth, taking into account all three aspects.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
JMIR PUBLICATIONS, INC , 2020. Vol. 8, no 7, article id e18072
Keywords [en]
telemedicine, smartphone, electronic health record, workflow, workload, workplace, public health practice, technology, perception, health education, mHealth, mobile health, telehealth, eHealth
National Category
Other Social Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-51083DOI: 10.2196/18072ISI: 000555897700001PubMedID: 32442132Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85088208104OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-51083DiVA, id: diva2:1473878
Available from: 2020-10-07 Created: 2020-10-07 Last updated: 2023-01-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Ivory, Chris

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jacob, ChristineIvory, Chris
In the same journal
JMIR mhealth and uhealth
Other Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 78 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf