Noor Azizah KS MOHAMADALI Supervisor: Dr. Jonathan Garibaldi IMA SEMINAR 28th April 2009

1. 1 Noor Azizah KS MOHAMADALI Supervisor: Dr. Jonathan Garibaldi IMA SEMINAR 28th April 2009

2. 2 Presentation Outline

3. 3 Introduction

4. 4 An overview of Evaluation Study in Health Informatics Evaluation study in health informatics is a study that measure or explore the attributes of health information systems (in planning, development, implementation or operation) with the aim to informs a decision to be made concerning that systems in a specific context. (Mohd Yusof and Papazafeiropoulou,2008) Evaluation is carried out to seek answers to the following (Friedman and Wyatt, 1997) : � Why : objective of evaluation? � Who: which stakeholders� perspective is going to be evaluated? � What: aspects of evaluation? � When: which phase in the system development life cycle? � How: method of evaluation?

5. 5 Why: Objective of Evaluation

6. 6 Who and What ?

7. 7 When: Stage of Evaluation

8. 8 How: Method of Evaluation

9. 9 Among all, user acceptance is one most important area of research. User acceptance is a risk for successful of any IT project (Louise K. Schaper, 2007) Clinical Information System (CIS) experienced high level of user resistance, thus understanding of a successful CIS implementation is critical to improve health care services as a whole. (Jean-Marc Palm, 2006)

10. 10 Research Methodology (Part 1) Steps Involved: Identify critical success factors (LR). Analyse Existing Theory/ Model of User Acceptance (IS Theory). Analyse Existing work on user acceptance of technology. Development of Proposed Integrated Model of Technology Acceptance. Evaluate Proposed Model.

11. 11 Step 1: Some of Identified Critical Success Factors

12. 12 Step 2: Overview of Existing Model of Technology Acceptance (IS Theory)

13. 13 Our Observation UTAUT and IS Success Model addressing the same issue but with different construct defined. Behavioural Intention to Use/ Intention to Use/ Use. -IS Success Model � Information Quality, System Quality and Service Quality -UTAUT - Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence And Facilitating Condition. The importance of fit between the factors (Ammenwerth et al., 2006; Kaplan,2001b; Goodhue,1998). The importance of moderating factors such as age, gender, experiences that may or may not have influence on new systems.

14. 14 Step 3: Analyses of Existing Work on User Acceptance of Technology

15. 15 The design-reality gap model (Heeks,2006) 

16. 16 ICT and OTs : A model of information and communication technology acceptance and utilisation by occupational therapists (Schaper and Pervan,2007)

17. 17 CHEATS : a generic information and communication technology evaluation framework (Shaw, 2002)

18. 18 Understanding IT acceptance by individual professional: Towards an integrating view (Yi et al., 2006)

19. 19 Step 4: Proposed Integrated Model of Technology Acceptance

20. 20

21. 21 Step 5 : Process of Evaluating a Model Ability to explain past observations Ability to predict future observations

22. 22 Model Evaluation (Phase 1)

23. 23 Model Evaluation (Phase 2)

24. 24 Current and Future Works Investigate techniques to assign priority among factors. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Cognitive Map (FCM) Work on Knowledge Representation Identify appropriate techniques to represent the knowledge (critical success factors) and to predict rate of successful implementation of new system.

25. 25 Conclusion

26. 26 References

27. 27 [16] Jean-Marc Palm, Isabelle Colombet, Claude Sicotte, Patrice Degoulet (2006). Determinants of User Satisfaction with a Clinical Information System. AMIA 2006 Symposium Proceeding. 614-618. [17] Christelle Despont-Gros, Henning Mueller, Christian Lovis (2005). Evaluating user interactions with clinical information systems: A model based on human-computer interaction models. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 38, 244-255. [18] Richard Heeks (2006). Health information systems: Failure, success and improvisation. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 75, 125-137. [19] Louise K. Schaper, Graham P. Pervan (2007). ICT and OTs: A model of information and communication technology acceptance and utilization by occupational therapists. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76s, S212-S221. [20] William J.Doll (1991). The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. MIS Quarterly, 5-10. [21] Gray Southon (1999). IT, Change and evaluation: an overview of the role of evaluation in health services. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 56, 125-133. [22] Clifford S. Goodman, Roy Ahn (1999). Methodological approaches of health technology assessment. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 56, 97-105. [23] Mun Y. Yi, Joyce D. Jackson, Jae S. Park, Janice C. Probst (2006). Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Towards an integrative view. Information and Management, 43, 350-363. [24] Bonnie Kaplan (2001). Evaluating informatics applications-some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 64, 39-56. [25] C.P. Friedman, J.C. Wyatt (1997). Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics, Springer-Verlag, New York. [26] Joan Ash, Marc Berg (2003). Report of conference Track 4: socio-technical issues of HIS. International Journal of Medical Informatics 69, 305-306. [27] Monice J. Garfield (2005), Acceptance of Ubiquitous Computing. Information Systems Management, 22, 24-31. [28] Claudie Sicotte, Guy Pare, Marie-Pierre Moreault, Andree Paccioni (2006). A Risk Assessment of Two Interorganizational Clinical Information Systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Associations, 13, 557-566. [29] http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/UTAUT.htm [30] http://www.fsc.yorku.ca/york/istheory/wiki/index.php/Delone_and_McLean_IS_success_model [31] http://www.fsc.yorku.ca/york/istheory/wiki/index.php/Task-technology_fit

28. 28