Towards understanding healthcare professionals’ adoption and use of technologies in clinical practice: Using Qmethodology and models of technology acceptance.

Muhammad Awwal Ladan, Heather Wharrad, Richard Windle


Background: Technologies have globally been recognised to improve productivity across different areas of practice including healthcare. This has been achieved due to the expansion of computers and other forms of information technologies. Despite this advancement, there has also been the growing challenge of the adoption and use of these technologies within practice and especially in healthcare. The evolution of information technologies and more specifically e-health within the healthcare practice has its own barriers and facilitators.

Methodology: This paper describes a pilot study to explore these factors that influence information and technology adoption and use by health professionals in the clinical area in Sub-Saharan Africa. We report on the use of Q-methodology and the models of technology acceptance used in combination for the first time. The methodology used for this study aims to explore the subjectivity of healthcare professionals and present their shared views (factors) on their adoption and use of e-health within clinical practice.

Keywords: E-health, Q-methodology, Healthcare professionals, Technology Acceptance Model, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, Sub-Saharan Africa.


E-health; Q-methodology; Healthcare professionals

Full Text:



Mostert-Phipps N, Pottas D and Korpela M. Guidelines to encourage the adoption and meaningful use of health information technologies in the South African healthcare landscape. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2013;192:147–51.

Akanbi MO, Ocheke AN, Agaba PA, Daniyam CA, Agaba EI, Okeke EN, et al. Use of electronic health records in sub-Saharan Africa: progress and challenges. Journal of Medicine in the Tropics 2012;14(1):1–6. PMid:25243111; PMCid:PMC4167769.

Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Labrecque M, Car J, Pagliari C, Pluye P, et al. Systematic review of factors influencing the adoption of information and communication technologies by healthcare professionals. Journal of Medical Systems 2012;36(1):241–77. Available from: PMid:20703721; PMCid:PMC4011799.

Qidwai W. Advances in information and communication technology (ICT): issues, challenges and opportunities for health care professionals. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan 2011;21(11):651–53.

Gururajan R and Hafeez-Baig A. An empirical study to determine factors that motivate and limit the implementation Of ICT in healthcare environments. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2014;14(1):98. Available from: PMid:25540040; PMCid:PMC4391394.

Kowitlawakul Y. The technology acceptance model: predicting nurses’ intention to use telemedicine technology (eICU). Computers Informatics Nursing 2011;29(7):411–18. Available from: PMid:20975536.

Harrison MI, Koppel R and Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care—an interactive sociotechnical analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 2007;14(5):542–49. Available from: PMid:17600093; PMCid:PMC1975796.

Holden RJ. Physicians’ beliefs about using EMR and CPOE: in pursuit of a contextualized understanding of health IT use behavior. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2010;79(2):71–80. Available from: PMid:20071219; PMCid:PMC2821328.

Bennani AE and Oumlil R (Eds). IT acceptance by nurses in Morocco: application of technology acceptance model. 2013 International Conference on Information Society (i-Society) 2013; 24–6.

Petit dit Dariel O. Exploring e-learning Adoption in Nurse Education: A Socio-Cultural Case Study Using Q and Bourdieu [Research]. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham, 2011.

Ami-Narh JT and Williams PAH. A revised UTAUT model to investigate E-health acceptance of health professionals in africa. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences 2012;3(10):1383–91.

Mohamadali NAK. Exploring New Factors and the Question of ‘Which’ in User Acceptance Studies of Healthcare Software. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham, 2012.

DongPing T and LianJin C (Eds). A review of the evolution of research on information technology acceptance model. 2011 International Conference on Business Management and Electronic Information (13–15 May), 2011, pp. 588–91.

Holden RJ and Karsh B-T. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2010;43(1):159–72. Available from: PMid:19615467; PMCid:PMC2814963.

Chau PYK and Hu PJ-H. Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Information & Management 2002;39(4):297–311. Available from:

Venkatesh V and Davis FD. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decision Sciences 1996;27(3):451–81. Available from:

Chismar WG and Wiley-Patton S (Eds). Does the extended technology acceptance model apply to physicians. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (6–9 Jan), 2003. Available from:

Hu PJ, Chau PYK, Liu Sheng OR and Kar Yan T. Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems 1999;16(2):91–112. Available from:

Lee Y, Kozar KA and Larsen KRT. The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2003;12(1):752–80.

Gagnon MP, Orruño E, Asua J, Abdeljelil AB and Emparanza J. Using a modified technology acceptance model to evaluate healthcare professionals’ adoption of a new telemonitoring system. Telemedicine Journal and e-health 2012;18(1):54–9. Available from:; Accessed 13 April 2017.

Venkatesh V, Sykes TA and Xiaojun Z (Eds). ‘Just what the doctor ordered’: a revised UTAUT for EMR system adoption and use by doctors. 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (4–7 Jan), 2011, 1–10.

Yarbrough AK and Smith TB. Technology acceptance among physicians: a new take on TAM. Medical Care Research and Review 2007;64(6):650–72. Available from: PMid:17717378.

Davis FD, Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 1989;35(8):982–1003. Available from:

Davis FD, Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1992;22(14):1111–32. Available from:

Schepers J and Wetzels M. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information and Management 2007;44(1):90–103. Available from:

Ketikidis P, Dimitrovski T, Lazuras L and Bath PA. Acceptance of health information technology in health professionals: an application of the revised technology acceptance model. Health Informatics Journal 2012;18(2):124–34. Available from: PMid:22733680.

Chuttur M. Overview of the technology acceptance model: origins, developments and future directions. Working Papers on Information Systems, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA, 2009.

Yousafzai SY, Foxall GR and Pallister JG. Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management 2007;2(3):251–80. Available from:;

England I, Stewart D and Walker S. Information technology adoption in health care: when organisations and technology collide. Australian Health Review 2000;23(3):176–85. Available from: PMid:11186051.

Venkatesh V and Davis F. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 2000;46(2):186–204. Available from:

Gagnon M-P, Nsangou É-R, Payne-Gagnon J, Grenier S and Sicotte C. Barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic prescription: a systematic review of user groups’ perceptions. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2014;21(3):535–41. Available from: PMid:24130232; PMCid:PMC3994867.

Haluza D and Jungwirth D. ICT and the future of health care: aspects of health promotion. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2015;84(1):48–57. Available from: PMid:25293532.

Lluch M. Healthcare professionals’ organisational barriers to health information technologies-a literature review. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2011;80(12):849–62. Available from: PMid:22000677.

Saigi-Rubio F, Torrent-Sellens J and Jimenez-Zarco A. Drivers of telemedicine use: comparative evidence from samples of Spanish, Colombian and Bolivian physicians. Implementation Science 2014;9(1):128. Available from: PMid:25293651; PMCid:PMC4195871.

Idowu B, Ogunbodede E and Idowu B. Information and communication technology in Nigeria: The health sector experience. Journal of Information Technology 2003;3(2):69–76.

King WR and He J. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management 2006;43(6):740–55. Available from:

Venkatesh V and Bala H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences 2008;39(2):273–315. Available from:

Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB and Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003;27(3):425–78. Available from:

Kijsanayotin B, Pannarunothai S and Speedie SM. Factors influencing health information technology adoption in Thailand’s community health centers: applying the UTAUT model. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2009;78:404–16. Available from: PMid:19196548.

Phichitchaisopa N and Naenna T. Factors affecting the adoption of healthcare information technology. Experimental and Clinical Sciences Journal 2013;12:413–36. PMid:26417235; PMCid:PMC4566918.

Melas CD, Zampetakis LA, Dimopoulou A and Moustakis V. Modeling the acceptance of clinical information systems among hospital medical staff: an extended TAM model. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2011;44(4):553–64. Available from: PMid:21292029.

Aggelidis VP and Chatzoglou PD. Using a modified technology acceptance model in hospitals. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2009;78(2):115–26. Available from: PMid:18675583.

Jimoh L, Pate MA, Lin L and Schulman KA. A model for the adoption of ICT by health workers in Africa. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2012;81(11):773–81. Available from: PMid:22986218.

Sharifian R, Askarian F, Nematolahi M and Farhadi P. Factors influencing nurses’ acceptance of hospital information systems in Iran: application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Health Information Management Journal 2014;43(3):23–8. Available from:

Wu PF. A mixed methods approach to technology acceptance research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 2012;13(3):172–87.

Schwarz A, Chin WW, Hirschheim R and Schwarz C. Toward a process-based view of information technology acceptance. Journal of Information Technology 2014;29(1):73–96. Available from:

Holden RJ, Brown RL, Scanlon MC and Karsh B-T. Modeling nurses’ acceptance of bar coded medication administration technology at a pediatric hospital. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 2012;19(6):1050–8. Available from: PMid:22661559; PMCid:PMC3534453.

Onwuegbuzie AJ and Frels RK. Using Q methodology in the literature review process: a mixed research approach. Journal of Educational Issues 2015;1(2):90–109. Available from:

Ramlo S. Mixed method lessons learned from 80 years of Q methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2016;10(1):28‒45.

O’Leary K, Eschler J, Kendall L, Vizer LM, Ralston JD and Pratt W. Understanding design tradeoffs for health technologies: a mixed-methods approach. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, South Korea), ACM, 2015, pp. 4151–60. Available from:

Brown SR. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1980.

Webler T, Danielson S and Tuler S. Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research. Greenfield, MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute, 2009. Available from:

Watts S and Stenner P. Doing Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation. London, UK: Sage, 2012.

Barbosa JC, Willoughby P, Rosenberg CA and Mrtek RG. Statistical methodology: VII. Q-methodology, a structural analytic approach to medical subjectivity. Academic Emergency Medicine 1998;5(10):1032–40. Available from: PMid:9862598.

Barker JH. Q-methodology: an alternative approach to research in nurse education. Nurse Education Today 2008;28(8):917–25. Available from: PMid:18572285.

Corr S. An introduction to Q methodology, a research technique. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy 2001;64(6):293–97. Available from:

Cross RM. Exploring attitudes: the case for Q methodology. Health Education Research 2005;20(2):206–13. Available from: PMid:15385430.

Paige JB and Morin KH. Q-sample construction: a critical step for a Q-methodological study. Western Journal of Nursing Research 2016;38(1):96–110. PMid:25092207.

Valenta AL and Wigger U. Q-methodology: definition and application in health care informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 1997;4(6):501–10. Available from:

Thomas DB and Baas LR. The issue of generalization in Q methodology: “Reliable schematics” revisited. Operant Subjectivity 1992;16(1/2):18–36.

Akhtar-Danesh N, Baumann A and Cordingley L. Q-methodology in nursing research: a promising method for the study of subjectivity. Western Journal of Nursing Research 2008;30(6):759–73. Available from: PMid:18337548.

vanExel J and de Graaf G. Q methodology: A sneak preview. 2005;pp. 1–21. Available from:; Accessed 1 March 2017.

Watts S and Stenner P. Qualitative Research in Psychology. London, UK: Routledge, 2005.

Petit dit Dariel O, Wharrad H and Windle R. Developing Q-methodology to explore staff views toward the use of technology in nurse education. Nurse Researcher 2010;18(1):58–71. Available from: PMid:21138086.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

This is an open access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or their institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal starting from Volume 21 without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open accessFor permission regarding papers published in previous volumes, please contact us.

Privacy statement: The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Online ISSN 2058-4563 - Print ISSN 2058-4555. Published by BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT