Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the Key Factors Impacting the Adoption and Use of Tethered Electronic Personal Health Records for Health Management

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover R&D Management in the Knowledge Era

Part of the book series: Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management ((ITKM))

Abstract

Information technology (IT) becomes crucial part of the healthcare system and it is getting more attention worldwide. Health IT includes well-known systems that have transformed the health sector, such as electronic health records (EHRs), electronic medical records (EMRs), and electronic personal health records (ePHRs). ePHR aims at enabling patients to take more active role in their care by providing them with a tool to access their health records in a secure and safe environment. The ePHR allows greater patient-provider engagement. The provider’s adoption rate of the ePHR as a tool to connect with patients and to enable them to have access to their records is increasing at an accelerated rate. However, the patient’s ePHR adoption rate remains low. In the United States, the number of office-based physicians adopting EHR increased from 17% in 2008 to 58% as of 2015. Similarly, the non-federal acute care hospitals with certified EHR rate increased from 9% in 2008 to 84% as of 2015 [1]. Despite the efforts to encourage the health care provider’s adoption of certified EHR and ePHR, the adoption rate by patients remains below expectations [2]. The goal of this report is to investigate the key factors influencing the adoption and use of the ePHR in order to understand the patients’ intentions of the adoption and use of such a technology. More attention is needed to improve the patient’s adoption of ePHR. The factors influencing the adoption and use of the ePHR for health management are grouped into six themes. These themes include performance factors, effort factors, social factors, facilitating conditions, perceived credibility, health factors, and computer factors. The themes involve essential factors that influence the adoption and use, such as perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, portal features, subjective norms, computer and internet availability, computer literacy, computer anxiety, privacy and security, health literacy, satisfaction with medical care, and provider’s support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Justification of estimates for appropriations committee: Fiscal year 2018. Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Laugesen, J., & Hassanein, K. (2017). Adoption of personal health records by chronic disease patients: A research model and an empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 256–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ratzan, S. C., & Parker, R. M. (2000). Health literacy. In National library of medicine current bibliographies in medicine. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Vernon, J. A., Trujillo, A., Rosenbaum, S. J., & DeBuono, B. (2007). Low health literacy: Implications for national health policy. Washington, DC: Department of Health Policy, School of Public Health and Health Services, The George Washington University.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mackert, M., Mabry-Flynn, A., Champlin, S., Donovan, E. E., & Pounders, K. (2016). Health literacy and health information technology adoption: The potential for a new digital divide. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(10), e264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006). eHEALS: The eHealth literacy scale. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(4), e27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Briones, R. (2015). Harnessing the web: How E-health and E-health literacy impact young adults’ perceptions of online health information. Medicine 2.0, 4(2), e5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Noblin, A. M., Wan, T. T. H., & Fottler, M. (2012). The impact of health literacy on a patient’s decision to adopt a personal health record. Perspectives in Health Information Management, 9(Fall), 1e.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jensen, J. D., King, A. J., Davis, L. S. A., & Guntzviller, L. M. (2010). Utilization of internet technology by low-income adults: The role of health literacy, health numeracy, and computer assistance. Journal of Aging and Health, 22(6), 804–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Monkman, H., & Kushniruk, A. (2013). Applying usability methods to identify health literacy issues: An example using a personal health record. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 183, 179–185.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dontje, K., Corser, W. D., & Holzman, G. (2014). Understanding patient perceptions of the electronic personal health record. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 10(10), 824–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cortelyou-Ward, K., Noblin, A., & Williams, C. (2012). Using the personal health record to improve health literacy: A social capital perspective. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 2(3), 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hemsley, B., Rollo, M., Georgiou, A., Balandin, S., & Hill, S. (2018). The health literacy demands of electronic personal health records (e-PHRs): An integrative review to inform future inclusive research. Patient Education and Counseling, 101(1), 2–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. van der Vaart, R., van Deursen, A. J., Drossaert, C. H., Taal, E., van Dijk, J. A., & van de Laar, M. A. (2011). Does the eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) measure what it intends to measure? Validation of a Dutch version of the eHEALS in two adult populations. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mitsutake, S., Shibata, A., Ishii, K., Okazaki, K., & Oka, K. (2011). Developing Japanese version of the eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS). Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi, 58(5), 361–371.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jarahi, L., Asadi, R., & Hakimi, H. R. (2017). General health literacy assessment of Iranian women in Mashhad. Electronic Physician, 9(11), 5764–5769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dashti, S., Peyman, N., Tajfard, M., & Esmaeeli, H. (2017). E-health literacy of medical and health sciences university students in Mashhad, Iran in 2016: A pilot study. Electronic Physician, 9(3), 3966–3973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Britt, R. K., Collins, W. B., Wilson, K., Linnemeier, G., & Englebert, A. M. (2017). eHealth literacy and health behaviors affecting modern college students: A pilot study of issues identified by the American College Health Association. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(12), e392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Petrič, G., Atanasova, S., & Kamin, T. (2017). Ill literates or illiterates? Investigating the eHealth literacy of users of online health communities. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(10), e331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Segall, N., Saville, J. G., L’Engle, P., Carlson, B., Wright, M. C., Schulman, K., & Tcheng, J. E. (2011). Usability evaluation of a personal health record. American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2011, 1233–1242.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sakaguchi-Tang, D. K., Bosold, A. L., Choi, Y. K., & Turner, A. M. (2017). Patient portal use and experience among older adults: Systematic review. JMIR Medical Informatics, 5(4), e38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hsieh, H.-L., Kuo, Y.-M., Wang, S.-R., Chuang, B.-K., & Tsai, C.-H. (2017). A study of personal health record user’s behavioral model based on the PMT and UTAUT integrative perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(1), 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Agrawal, E. (2011). Acceptance and use of personal health record: Factors affecting physicians’perspective. PhD thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Emani, S., Yamin, C. K., Peters, E., Karson, A. S., Lipsitz, S. R., Wald, J. S., Williams, D. H., & Bates, D. W. (2012). Patient perceptions of a personal health record: A test of the diffusion of innovation model. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(6), e150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tavares, J., & Oliveira, T. (2016). Electronic health record patient portal adoption by health care consumers: An acceptance model and survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(3), e49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu, L. S., & Hayes, G. R. (2010). Heuristic evaluation of personal health records systems. In International workshop on interactive systems in healthcare (p. 101). New York, NY: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sheehan, B., & Lucero, R. J. (2015). Initial usability and feasibility evaluation of a personal health record-based self-management system for older adults. EGEMS (Washington, DC), 3(2), 1152.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Price, M., Bellwood, P., & Davies, I. (2015). Using usability evaluation to inform Alberta’s personal health record design. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 208, 314–318.

    Google Scholar 

  29. HIMSS. (2014, September 01). The business case for interoperability and health information exchange [Online]. Retrieved December 08, 2017, from http://www.himss.org/business-case-interoperability-and-health-information-exchange

  30. HIMSS. (2016, May 12). Introductory glossary and brochure: Health information exchange [Online]. Retrieved August 02, 2017, from http://www.himss.org/introductory-glossary-and-brochure-health-information-exchange

  31. What is HIE (health information exchange)? Providers & professionals. HealthIT.gov [Online]. Retrieved December 08, 2017, from https://www.healthit.gov/providers-professionals/health-information-exchange/what-hie

  32. Fontaine, P., Ross, S. E., Zink, T., & Schilling, L. M. (2010). Systematic review of health information exchange in primary care practices. Journal of American Board of Family Medicine, 23(5), 655–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Health information exchange governance. Providers & professionals. HealthIT.gov [Online]. Retrieved December 08, 2017, from https://www.healthit.gov/providers-professionals/hie-governance

  34. Fricton, J. R., & Davies, D. (2008). Personal health records to improve health information exchange and patient safety. In K. Henriksen, J. B. Battles, M. A. Keyes, & M. L. Grady (Eds.), Advances in patient safety: New directions and alternative approaches (Vol. 4: Technology and medication safety). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wen, K.-Y., Kreps, G., Zhu, F., & Miller, S. (2010). Consumers’ perceptions about and use of the internet for personal health records and health information exchange: Analysis of the 2007 health information national trends survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12(4), e73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Patel, V. N., Dhopeshwarkar, R. V., Edwards, A., Barrón, Y., Sparenborg, J., & Kaushal, R. (2012). Consumer support for health information exchange and personal health records: A regional health information organization survey. Journal of Medical Systems, 36(3), 1043–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. HIMSS. (2017, August 17). Interoperability and health information exchange [Online]. Retrieved December 08, 2017, from http://www.himss.org/library/interoperability-health-information-exchange

  38. 2016 report to congress on health information technology progress [Online]. Retrieved December 05, 2017, from https://dashboard.healthit.gov/report-to-congress/2016-report-congress-examining-hitech-era-future-health-information-technology.php

  39. Archer, N., Fevrier-Thomas, U., Lokker, C., McKibbon, A., Willison, D., & Straus, S. (2010). Electronic Personal Health Records: An Environmental Scan. Working Paper No. 34. McMaster Business Research Centre (MeRC), McMaster University: Hamilton, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pagliari, C., Detmer, D., & Singleton, P. (2007). Electronic personal health records. In Emergence and implications for the UK. London, UK: The Nuffield Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006). eHealth literacy: Essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(2), e9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Day, K., & Gu, Y. (2012). Influencing factors for adopting personal health record (PHR). Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 178, 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Saranto, K., & Leino-Kilpi, H. (1997). Computer literacy in nursing; developing the information technology syllabus in nursing education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(2), 377–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Koivunen, M., Hätönen, H., & Välimäki, M. (2008). Barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of an interactive internet-portal application for patient education in psychiatric hospitals. Patient Education and Counseling, 70(3), 412–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lober, W. B., Zierler, B., Herbaugh, A., Shinstrom, S. E., Stolyar, A., Kim, E. H., & Kim, Y. (2006). Barriers to the use of a personal health record by an elderly population. American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2006, 514–518.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Cocosila, M., & Archer, N. (2012). Consumer perceptions of the adoption of electronic personal health records: an empirical investigation. Seattle, Washington: Americas Conference on Information Systems Proceedings; Americas Conference on Information Systems 2012 Proceedings. 10. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/ISHealthcare/10

  47. Kim, E., Mayani, A., Modi, S., Kim, Y., & Soh, C. (2005). Evaluation of patient-centered electronic health record to overcome digital divide. Conference Proceedings: Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 1, 593–596.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Irizarry, T., DeVito Dabbs, A., & Curran, C. R. (2015). Patient portals and patient engagement: A state of the science review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(6), e148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kim, K., & Nahm, E. (2012). Benefits of and barriers to the use of personal health records (PHR) for health management among adults. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics, 16(3), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Pew Research Center: Internet & Technology. (2018, Feb 05). Internet/broadband fact sheet. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Griffin, A., Skinner, A., Thornhill, J., & Weinberger, M. (2016). Patient Portals. Applied clinical informatics, 7(2), 489–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Nazi, K. M. (2013). The personal health record paradox: Health care professionals’ perspectives and the information ecology of personal health record systems in organizational and clinical settings. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(4), e70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Chung, M.-H., Ho, C.-H., & Wen, H.-C. (2016). Predicting intentions of nurses to adopt patient personal health records: A structural equation modeling approach. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 136, 45–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Vydra, T. P., Cuaresma, E., Kretovics, M., & Bose-Brill, S. (2015). Diffusion and use of tethered personal health records in primary care. Perspectives in Health Information Management, 12(Spring), 1c.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Menon, A. S., Greenwald, S., Ma, T. J., Kooshesh, S., & Duriseti, R. (2012). Patient and physician willingness to use personal health records in the emergency department. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13(2), 172–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Wells, S., Rozenblum, R., Park, A., Dunn, M., & Bates, D. W. (2015). Organizational strategies for promoting patient and provider uptake of personal health records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 22(1), 213–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Jha, A. K., DesRoches, C. M., Campbell, E. G., Donelan, K., Rao, S. R., Ferris, T. G., Shields, A., Rosenbaum, S., & Blumenthal, D. (2009). Use of electronic health Records in U.S. hospitals. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(16), 1628–1638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. HIMSS. (2014, December 01). Using patient portals to achieve meaningful use (EP Edition) [Online]. Retrieved August 02, 2017, from http://www.himss.org/using-patient-portals-achieve-meaningful-use-ep-edition

  61. Wright, A., Feblowitz, J., Samal, L., McCoy, A. B., & Sittig, D. F. (2014). The Medicare electronic health record incentive program: Provider performance on core and menu measures. Health Services Research, 49(1 Pt 2), 325–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Yau, G. L., Williams, A. S., & Brown, J. B. (2011). Family physicians’ perspectives on personal health records: Qualitative study. Canadian Family Physician, 57(5), e178–e184.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Witry, M. J., Doucette, W. R., Daly, J. M., Levy, B. T., & Chrischilles, E. A. (2010). Family physician perceptions of personal health records. Perspectives in Health Information Management, 7, 1d.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Miller, D. P., Jr., Latulipe, C., Melius, K. A., Quandt, S. A., & Arcury, T. A. (2016). Primary care providers’ views of patient portals: Interview study of perceived benefits and consequences. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(1), e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Keplinger, L. E., Koopman, R. J., Mehr, D. R., Kruse, R. L., Wakefield, D. S., Wakefield, B. J., & Canfield, S. M. (2013). Patient portal implementation: Resident and attending physician attitudes. Family Medicine, 45(5), 335–340.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Wade-Vuturo, A. E., Mayberry, L. S., & Osborn, C. Y. (2013). Secure messaging and diabetes management: Experiences and perspectives of patient portal users. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(3), 519–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Connecting for Health. (2003, July 01). The personal health working group final report. Markle Foundation [Online]. Retrieved November 12, 2017, from http://www.providersedge.com/ehdocs/ehr_articles/The_Personal_Health_Working_Group_Final_Report.pdf

  68. Kruse, C. S., Argueta, D. A., Lopez, L., & Nair, A. (2015). Patient and provider attitudes toward the use of patient portals for the management of chronic disease: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(2), e40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Urowitz, S., Wiljer, D., Dupak, K., Kuehner, Z., Leonard, K., Lovrics, E., Picton, P., Seto, E., & Cafazzo, J. (2012). Improving diabetes management with a patient portal: Qualitative study of a diabetes self-management portal. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(6), e158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Fiks, A. G., DuRivage, N., Mayne, S. L., Finch, S., Ross, M. E., Giacomini, K., Suh, A., McCarn, B., Brandt, E., Karavite, D., Staton, E. W., Shone, L. P., McGoldrick, V., Noonan, K., Miller, D., Lehmann, C. U., Pace, W. D., & Grundmeier, R. W. (2016). Adoption of a portal for the primary care management of pediatric asthma: A mixed-methods implementation study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(6), e172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Pai, H. H., Lau, F., Barnett, J., & Jones, S. (2013). Meeting the health information needs of prostate cancer patients using personal health records. Current Oncology, 20(6), e561–e569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Clark, S. J., Costello, L. E., Gebremariam, A., & Dombkowski, K. J. (2015). A national survey of parent perspectives on use of patient portals for their children’s health care. Applied clinical informatics, 6(1), 110–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. PatientEngagementHIT. (2017, February 17). How do patient portals and personal health records differ? [Online]. Retrieved December 20, 2017, from https://patientengagementhit.com/features/how-do-patient-portals-and-personal-health-records-differ

  74. Zettel-Watson, L., & Tsukerman, D. (2016). Adoption of online health management tools among healthy older adults: An exploratory study. Health Informatics Journal, 22(2), 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Yamin, C. K., Emani, S., Williams, D. H., Lipsitz, S. R., Karson, A. S., Wald, J. S., & Bates, D. W. (2011). The digital divide in adoption and use of a personal health record. Archives of Internal Medicine, 171(6), 568–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Goel, M. S., Brown, T. L., Williams, A., Cooper, A. J., Hasnain-Wynia, R., & Baker, D. W. (2011). Patient reported barriers to enrolling in a patient portal. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 18(Suppl 1), i8–i12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Turner, A. M., Osterhage, K., Hartzler, A., Joe, J., Lin, L., Kanagat, N., & Demiris, G. (2015). Use of patient portals for personal health information management: The older adult perspective. American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2015, 1234–1241.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Czaja, S. J., Zarcadoolas, C., Vaughon, W. L., Lee, C. C., Rockoff, M. L., & Levy, J. (2015). The usability of electronic personal health record systems for an underserved adult population. Human Factors, 57(3), 491–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Steele, R., Min, K., & Lo, A. (2012). Personal health record architectures: Technology infrastructure implications and dependencies. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 63(6), 1079–1091.

    Google Scholar 

  80. HealthIT.gov. (2015, April). Guide to privacy and security of electronic health information. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology [Online]. Retrieved March 19, 2018, from https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/privacy/privacy-and-security-guide.pdf

  81. Rindfleisch, T. C. (1997). Privacy, information technology, and health care. Communications of the ACM, 40(8), 92–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Ong, C.-S., Lai, J.-Y., & Wang, Y.-S. (2004). Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information & Management, 41(6), 795–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Ma, C.-C., Kuo, K.-M., & Alexander, J. W. (2016). A survey-based study of factors that motivate nurses to protect the privacy of electronic medical records. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 16(1), 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. HHS.gov. (2009, November 20). Summary of the HIPAA security rule [Online]. Retrieved November 15, 2017, from https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/laws-regulations/index.html

  85. HealthIT.gov. Guide to privacy and security of electronic health information [Online]. Retrieved March 25, 2018, from https://www.healthit.gov/providers-professionals/guide-privacy-and-security-electronic-health-information

  86. Gartrell, K., Trinkoff, A. M., Storr, C. L., Wilson, M. L., & Gurses, A. P. (2015). Testing the electronic personal health record acceptance model by nurses for managing their own health. Applied clinical informatics, 6(2), 224–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Klein, R. (2007). An empirical examination of patient-physician portal acceptance. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(6), 751–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Goff, C. R. (2016). Predictors of patient portal use: Patient engagement through meaningful use. Ph.D., Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Razmak, J., & Bélanger, C. (2018). Using the technology acceptance model to predict patient attitude towards personal health records in regional communities. Information Technology & People, 31(2), 306–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Emani, S., Healey, M., Ting, D. Y., Lipsitz, S. R., Ramelson, H., Suric, V., & Bates, D. W. (2016). Awareness and use of the after-visit summary through a patient portal: Evaluation of patient characteristics and an application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(4), e77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Harrison, T. G., Wick, J., Ahmed, S. B., Jun, M., Manns, B. J., Quinn, R. R., Tonelli, M., & Hemmelgarn, B. R. (2015). Patients with chronic kidney disease and their intent to use electronic personal health records. Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, 2, 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Agarwal, R., Anderson, C., Zarate, J., & Ward, C. (2013). If we offer it, will they accept? Factors affecting patient use intentions of personal health records and secure messaging. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(2), e43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Laugesen, D. J. (2013). Adoption of electronic personal health records by chronic disease patients: Integrating protection motivation theory and task-technology fit. PhD thesis, School of Graduate Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Portland, OR, USA

    Saeed Alzahrani & Tuğrul Daim

Authors
  1. Saeed Alzahrani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tuğrul Daim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuğrul Daim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering and Technology, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

    Tuğrul Daim

  2. Faculty of Economics & Business, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Marina Dabić

  3. İzmir Institute of Technology, Urla, Izmir, Turkey

    Nuri Başoğlu

  4. Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

    João Ricardo Lavoie

  5. School of Computer Science, Innovation, and Management Engineering College of Management, Long Island University (LIU), Greenvale, NY, USA

    Brian J. Galli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Alzahrani, S., Daim, T. (2019). Assessing the Key Factors Impacting the Adoption and Use of Tethered Electronic Personal Health Records for Health Management. In: Daim, T., Dabić, M., Başoğlu, N., Lavoie, J.R., Galli, B.J. (eds) R&D Management in the Knowledge Era. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15409-7_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation