Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Users’ acceptance of electronic patient portals in Lebanon

Authors: Gladys N. Honein-AbouHaidar, Jumana Antoun, Karim Badr, Sani Hlais, Houry Nazaretian

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Acceptance of Electronic patient portal (EPP) is instrumental for its success. Studies on users’ acceptance in the Middle East region are scarce. This study aims to use the TAM as a framework to quantitatively describe potential users, diabetic and chronic high blood pressure patients and their providers, intention to use and factors influencing the intention to use EPP at AUBMC-FMC We concurrently test the internal construct validity and the reliability of the TAM.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey design and the vignette approach were used. For validation, we needed a minimum of 180 patients; all 35 attending physicians and 11 registered nurses were targeted. We used descriptive statistics to calculate the intention to use EPP and its determinants based on the TAM constructs. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) were employed to estimate significant path coefficients for patients only as the sample size of providers was too small.

Results

We had 199 patients, half intended to use EPP; 73% of providers (N = 17) intended to use EPP. Perceived ease of use and privacy concerns were significantly higher among providers than patients (Mean (M) = 0.77 vs M = 0.42 (CI: − 0.623; − 0.081)) and (M = 3.67 vs M = 2.13, CI: − 2.16; − 0.91) respectively; other constructs were not significantly different. Reliability of TAM revealed a Cronbach Alpha of α=.91. EFA showed that three components explained 73.48% of the variance: Behavioral Intention of Use (14.9%), Perceived Ease of Use (50.74%), Perceived Usefulness (7.84%). SEM found that perceived ease of use increased perceived usefulness (standardized regression weight = 0.49); perceived usefulness (0.51) had more predictive value than perceived ease of use (0.27) to explain the behavioral intention of use of the EPP.

Conclusions

We found that providers valued the usefulness of EPP and were mostly intending to use it. This finding has yet to be tested in future studies testing actual use as intention and actual use may not be concordant. The intention to use among patients was lower than those reported in developed countries. We identified two factors that we need to address to increase use, namely perceived ease and usefulness, and proposed practical implications to address them; future research directions were also discussed.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Glynn L, Casey M, Walsh J, Hayes PS, Harte RP, Heaney D. Patients’ views and experiences of technology based self-management tools for the treatment of hypertension in the community: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16:119.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
3.
4.
Powell J, Inglis N, Ronnie J, Large S. The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(1):e20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Kolodychuk NL, Wong M, Chimento G, Adams T, Gastanaduy M, Waddell BS. Web-based patient portal access in an orthopedic adult reconstruction patient population. Arthroplasty today. 2019;5(1):83–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Arnhold M, Quade M, Kirch W. Mobile applications for diabetics: a systematic review and expert-based usability evaluation considering the special requirements of diabetes patients age 50 years or older. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(4):e104.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
El-Gayar O, Timsina P, Nawar N, Eid W. Mobile applications for diabetes self-management: status and potential. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(1):247–62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Kebede MM, Schuett C, Pischke CR. The Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring, Diabetes Smartphone Applications, and Self-Care Behavior in Glycemic Control: Results of a Multi-National Online Survey. J Clin Med. 2019;8(1).PubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Lim C, Berry A, Hirsch T, Hartzler AH, Wagner E, Ludman E, et al. “It just seems outside my health”: How Patients with Chronic Conditions Perceive Communication Boundaries with Providers. 2016.
10.
11.
Goldzweig CL, Orshansky G, Paige NM, Towfigh AA, Haggstrom DA, Miake-Lye I, et al. Electronic patient portals: evidence on health outcomes, satisfaction, efficiency, and attitudes: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(10):677–87.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Ricciardi L, Mostashari F, Murphy J, Daniel JG, Siminerio EP. A national action plan to support consumer engagement via e-health. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):376–84.CrossRef
13.
Dendere R, Slade C, Burton-Jones A, Sullivan C, Staib A, Janda M. Patient portals facilitating engagement with inpatient electronic medical records: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(4):e12779.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Beaudoin DE, Rocha RA, Tse T. Enhancing access to patient education information: a pilot usability study. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005;892.
15.
Kupchunas WR. Personal health record: new opportunity for patient education. Orthop Nurs. 2007;26(3):185–91 quiz 92-3.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Leveille SG, Huang A, Tsai SB, Allen M, Weingart SN, Iezzoni LI. Health coaching via an internet portal for primary care patients with chronic conditions: a randomized controlled trial. Med Care. 2009;47(1):41–7.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Hoerbst A. The impact of electronic patient portals on patient care: a systematic review of controlled trials. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(6).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Coughlin SS, Prochaska JJ, Williams LB, Besenyi GM, Heboyan V, Goggans DS, et al. Patient web portals, disease management, and primary prevention. Risk Manage Healthc Policy. 2017;10:33.CrossRef
19.
Jhamb M, Cavanaugh KL, Bian A, Chen G, Ikizler TA, Unruh ML, et al. Disparities in electronic health record patient portal use in nephrology clinics. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015:CJN. 01640215.
20.
Kruse CS, Argueta DA, Lopez L, Nair A. Patient and provider attitudes toward the use of patient portals for the management of chronic disease: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Sarkar U, Karter AJ, Liu JY, Adler NE, Nguyen R, Lopez A, et al. Social disparities in internet patient portal use in diabetes: evidence that the digital divide extends beyond access. JAMIA. 2011;18(3):318–21.PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Demiris G, Afrin LB, Speedie S, Courtney KL, Sondhi M, Vimarlund V, et al. Patient-centered applications: use of information technology to promote disease management and wellness. A white paper by the AMIA knowledge in motion working group. JAMIA. 2008;15(1):8–13.PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Kaelber DC, Jha AK, Johnston D, Middleton B, Bates DW. A research agenda for personal health records (PHRs). JAMIA. 2008;15(6):729–36.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Luzio S, Piehlmeier W, Tovar C, Eberl S, Lätzsch G, Fallböhmer E, et al. Results of the pilot study of DIADEM—A comprehensive disease management programme for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007;76(3):410–7.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Kruse CS, Argueta DA, Lopez L, Nair A. Patient and provider attitudes toward the use of patient portals for the management of chronic disease: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Neuner J, Fedders M, Caravella M, Bradford L, Schapira M. Meaningful use and the patient portal: patient enrollment, use, and satisfaction with patient portals at a later-adopting center. Am J Med Qual. 2015;30(2):105–13.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Turvey C, Klein D, Fix G, Hogan TP, Woods S, Simon SR, et al. Blue button use by patients to access and share health record information using the Department of Veterans Affairs' online patient portal. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(4):657–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Goel MS, Brown TL, Williams A, Cooper AJ, Hasnain-Wynia R, Baker DW. Patient reported barriers to enrolling in a patient portal. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(Supplement_1):i8–i12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Goel MS, Brown TL, Williams A, Hasnain-Wynia R, Thompson JA, Baker DW. Disparities in enrollment and use of an electronic patient portal. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(10):1112–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
31.
Smith SG, O’conor R, Aitken W, Curtis LM, Wolf MS, Goel MS. Disparities in registration and use of an online patient portal among older adults: findings from the LitCog cohort. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(4):888–95.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Tieu L, Sarkar U, Schillinger D, Ralston JD, Ratanawongsa N, Pasick R, et al. Barriers and facilitators to online portal use among patients and caregivers in a safety net health care system: a qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(12).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Zhao JY, Song B, Anand E, Schwartz D, Panesar M, Jackson GP, et al. Barriers, facilitators, and solutions to optimal patient portal and personal health record use: a systematic review of the literature. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2017;2017:1913–22.PubMed
34.
Gordon NP, Hornbrook MC. Differences in access to and preferences for using patient portals and other eHealth technologies based on race, ethnicity, and age: a database and survey study of seniors in a large health plan. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(3).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Sarkar U, Karter AJ, Liu JY, Adler NE, Nguyen R, Lopez A, et al. The literacy divide: health literacy and the use of an internet-based patient portal in an integrated health system-results from the diabetes study of northern California (DISTANCE). J Health Commun. 2010;15(Suppl 2):183–96.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
An JY. Theory development in health care informatics: information and communication technology acceptance model (ICTAM) improves the explanatory and predictive power of technology acceptance models. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006;122:63–7.PubMed
37.
Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Mis Quart. 1989;13(3):319–40.CrossRef
38.
McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Handler SM, Dolovich LR, Holbrook AM, O'Reilly D, et al. Enabling medication management through health information technology (Health IT). Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2011;(201):1–951.
39.
Or CK, Karsh BT. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. JAMIA. 2009;16(4):550–60.PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Peek ST, Wouters EJ, van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJ. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(4):235–48.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Samaradiwakara G, Gunawardena C. Comparison of existing technology acceptance theories and models to suggest a well improved theory/model. Int Tech Sci J. 2014;1(1):21–36.
42.
Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci. 1989;35(8):982–1003.CrossRef
43.
Kripanont N. Examining a technology acceptance model of internet usage by academics within Thai business schools: Victoria University; 2007.
44.
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Mis Quart. 2003:425–78.CrossRef
45.
Taylor S, Todd PA. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf Syst Res. 1995;6(2):144–76.CrossRef
46.
47.
Andrews L, Gajanayake R, Sahama T. The Australian general public's perceptions of having a personally controlled electronic health record (PCEHR). Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(12):889–900.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Archer N, Fevrier-Thomas U, Lokker C, McKibbon KA, Straus SE. Personal health records: a scoping review. JAMIA. 2011;18(4):515–22.PubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Hagglund M, Koch S. Commentary: Sweden rolls out online access to medical records and is developing new e-health services to enable people to manage their care. BMJ. 2015;350:h359.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Borycki E, Househ F, Kushniruk A, Nohr C, Takeda H. Empowering patients: making health information and systems safer for patients and the public. Yearbook Med Inform. 2012;21(01):56–64.CrossRef
51.
Rimpilainen S. A review of electronic health records systems around the world; 2015.
52.
Rasmi M, Alazzam MB, Alsmadi MK, Almarashdeh IA, Alkhasawneh RA, Alsmadi S. Healthcare professionals’ acceptance electronic health records system: critical literature review (Jordan case study). Int J Healthc Manag. 2018:1–13.
53.
Bodolica V, Spraggon M. Toward patient-centered care and inclusive health-care governance: a review of patient empowerment in the UAE. Public Health. 2019;169:114–24.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Weber AS, Turjoman R, Shaheen Y, Al Sayyed F, Hwang MJ, Malick F. Systematic thematic review of e-health research in the Gulf cooperation council (Arabian gulf): Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. J Telemed Telecare. 2016;23(4):452–9.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Lakkis NA, Mahmassani DM, Hamadeh GN. Diabetes quality of care at a university community in Beirut. J Eval Clin Pract. 2015;21(5):824–30.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Mensing C, Boucher J, Cypress M, Weinger K, Mulcahy K, Barta P, et al. National standards for diabetes self-management education. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(Suppl 1):S78–85.PubMed
57.
Alexander CS, Becker HJ. The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opin Q. 1978;42(1):93–104.CrossRef
58.
Cavanagh GF, Fritzsche DJ. Using vignettes in business ethics research; 1985.
59.
Lysonski S, Gaidis W. A cross-cultural comparison of the ethics of business students. J Bus Ethics. 1991;10(2):141–50.CrossRef
60.
Weber J. Scenarios in business ethics research: review, critical assessment, and recommendations. Bus Ethics Q. 1992;2(2):137–60.CrossRef
61.
Evans SC, Roberts MC, Keeley JW, Blossom JB, Amaro CM, Garcia AM, et al. Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians' decision-making: validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies. Int J Clin Hlth Psyc. 2015;15(2):160–70.CrossRef
62.
Tsang S, Royse CF, Terkawi AS. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anaesth. 2017;11(Suppl 1):S80–s9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
63.
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1984;49(2):155–73.CrossRef
64.
Ding L, Velicer WF, Harlow LL. Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 1995;2(2):119–43.CrossRef
65.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics: Pearson Boston, MA; 2007.
66.
Tinsley HE, Tinsley DJ. Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol. 1987;34(4):414.CrossRef
67.
IBMCorp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0. IBM Corp:. Armonk, NY, USA. 2016.
68.
Arbuckle JL. IBM SPSS Amos 21. Chicago, IL: Amos Development Corporation; 2012.
69.
Hair JF, Anderson RE, Babin BJ, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective (Vol. 7). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; 2010.
70.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE initiative. The Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE)statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344–9.CrossRef
71.
Kelly MM, Dean SM, Carayon P, Wetterneck TB, Hoonakker PL. Healthcare team perceptions of a portal for parents of hospitalized children before and after implementation. Appl Clin Inform. 2017;26(01):265–78.CrossRef
72.
Hadhri W, Arvanitis R, M’Henni H. Determinants of innovation activities in small and open economies: the Lebanese business sector. J Innov Econ Manag. 2016;3:77–107.CrossRef
73.
El Mustapha H, Hoppe T, Bressers H. Consumer renewable energy technology adoption decision-making; comparing models on perceived attributes and attitudinal constructs in the case of solar water heaters in Lebanon. 2017. 347–357 p.
74.
Makarem NN, Antoun J. Email communication in a developing country: different family physician and patient perspectives. Libyan J Med. 2016;11(1):32679.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Al-Adwan A Understanding Physicians’ Adoption of EMR: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model the Case of: Jordan. 2013.
76.
Ahlers-Schmidt CR, Nguyen M. Parent intention to use a patient portal as related to their children following a facilitated demonstration. Telemed E-Health. 2013;19(12):979–81.CrossRef
77.
Haun JN, Patel NR, Lind JD, Antinori N. Large-scale survey findings inform patients’ experiences in using secure messaging to engage in patient-provider communication and self-care management: a quantitative assessment. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(12):e282.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
78.
Belcher T, Vess J, Johnson E. Using patient portal messaging to improve glycemic control in adult patients with diabetes in Saudi Arabia. OJNI. 2019;23(1).
79.
Dajani D, Yaseen SG. The applicability of technology acceptance models in the Arab business setting. J Bus Retail Manage Res. 2016;10(3).
80.
Wang DS, Jani AB, Sesay M, Tai CG, Lee DK, Echt KV, et al. Video-based educational tool improves patient comprehension of common prostate health terminology. Cancer. 2015;121(5):733–40.PubMedCrossRef
81.
Noblin AM, Wan TT, Fottler M. Intention to use a personal health record: a theoretical analysis using the technology acceptance model. Int J Healthc Technol Manag. 2013;14(1–2):73–89.CrossRef
82.
Silvestre A-L, Sue VM, Allen JY. If you build it, will they come? The Kaiser Permanente model of online health care. Health Aff. 2009;28(2):334–44.CrossRef
83.
Tavares J, Oliveira T. New integrated model approach to understand the factors that drive electronic health record portal adoption: cross-sectional National Survey. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(11):e11032.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
84.
Ward K, Hawthorne K. Do patients read health promotion posters in the waiting room? A study in one general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1994;44(389):583–5.PubMedPubMedCentral
85.
Saleem JJ, Patterson ES, Militello L, Render ML, Orshansky G, Asch SM. Exploring barriers and facilitators to the use of computerized clinical reminders. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(4):438–47.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
86.
Shaw RJ, Horvath MM, Leonard D, Ferranti JM, Johnson CM. Developing a user-friendly interface for a self-service healthcare research portal: cost-effective usability testing. Health Syst. 2015;4(2):151–8.CrossRef
87.
Lazard AJ, Watkins I, Mackert MS, Xie B, Stephens KK, Shalev H. Design simplicity influences patient portal use: the role of aesthetic evaluations for technology acceptance. JAMIA. 2016;23(e1):e157–e61.PubMed
88.
Latulipe C, Gatto A, Nguyen HT, Miller DP, Quandt SA, Bertoni AG, et al, editors. Design considerations for patient portal adoption by low-income, older adults. Proc 33rd Ann ACM Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst; 2015: ACM.
89.
Kruse CS, Bolton K, Freriks G. The effect of patient portals on quality outcomes and its implications to meaningful use: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
90.
Cho AH, Arar NH, Edelman DE, Hartwell PH, Oddone EZ, Yancy WS Jr. Do diabetic veterans use the internet? Self-reported usage, skills, and interest in using my HealtheVet web portal. Telemed e-Health. 2010;16(5):595–602.CrossRef
91.
Alpert JM, Desens L, Krist AH, Aycock RA, Kreps GL. Measuring health literacy levels of a patient portal using the CDC's clear communication index. Health Promot Pract. 2017;18(1):140–9.PubMedCrossRef
92.
Davis TC, Williams MV, Marin E, Parker RM, Glass J. Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52(3):134–49.PubMedCrossRef
93.
Kreps GL, Neuhauser L. New directions in eHealth communication: opportunities and challenges. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(3):329–36.PubMedCrossRef
94.
Powell KR. Patient-perceived facilitators of and barriers to electronic portal use: a systematic review. CIN. 2017;35(11):565–73.PubMed
95.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Users’ acceptance of electronic patient portals in Lebanon
Authors
Gladys N. Honein-AbouHaidar
Jumana Antoun
Karim Badr
Sani Hlais
Houry Nazaretian
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-1047-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

A mobile app implementing the international classification of functioning, disability and health rehabilitation set

Research article

An app for supporting older people receiving home care – usage, aspects of health and health literacy: a quasi-experimental study

Research article

Usage of cloud storage facilities by medical students in a low-middle income country, Sri Lanka: a cross sectional study

Technical advance

Design and clinical validation of a software program for automated measurement of mammographic breast density

Research article

Analysis of real-world data on growth hormone therapy adherence using a connected injection device

Research article

Deep learning based feature-level integration of multi-omics data for breast cancer patients survival analysis