MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569514613 · doi:10.4018/ijtd.2017010101

Using an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior to Study Nurses' Adoption of Healthcare Information Systems in Nova Scotia

2017· article· en· W2569514613 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Princely Ifinedo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Diffusion · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorCape Breton University
KeywordsNova scotiaTheory of planned behaviorHabitNorm (philosophy)PsychologyAnxietyHealth careApplied psychologyKnowledge managementSocial psychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceSociologyControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study used the theory of planned behavior (TPB), which was extended to include relevant constructs such as computer self-efficacy, anxiety and habit, to investigate registered nurses' (RNs') adoption of healthcare information systems (HIS) in Nova Scotia, Canada. An analysis of data collected from 197 RNs in a cross-sectional survey showed that their attitudes towards HIS were positively impacted by computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety (lack thereof). RNs' attitudes toward HIS and facilitating organizational conditions significantly influenced intentions to use HIS at work. Contrary to prediction, subjective norm did not influence RNs' intentions to use HIS in the research setting. Computer habit mattered for RNs' acceptance of HIS. Information from the study benefits the management of RNs' HIS use in Nova Scotia, in particular, and comparable parts of Canada and the world.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology DiffusionSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207