Product adoption · Systematic review of empirical ICT-adoption studies.

Systematic review of factors influencing the adoption of information and communication technologies by healthcare professionals

Journal of Medical Systems · 2012

Gagnon, M.-P., et al.

Summary

Adoption is influenced by perceived usefulness/ease, social and organizational factors, workflow fit and facilitating conditions.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Treat workflow fit, training, peer influence and implementation support as adoption levers in regulated B2B markets.

Reported result

What the study found

Adoption is influenced by perceived usefulness/ease, social and organizational factors, workflow fit and facilitating conditions.

Research question

What the authors investigated

Which factors influence professionals’ adoption of ICT?

Design

Systematic review of empirical ICT-adoption studies.

Sample and setting

Healthcare professionals and ICT adoption studies.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Healthcare-specific evidence; transfer to commercial software requires validation.

Research sources

Publisher abstract/metadata retrieved from the DOI landing page; design and finding summarized from that abstract.

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.

Read the paper