![](bg5.png)
the same system implemented in two different setting
results in two different outcome. Most of the pre-
vious studies only identify those acceptance factors,
but these factors could not stand on their own. The
present or absence of user acceptance factors depend
on the ‘fit’ function. In this paper, we have argued
for the importance of understanding and addressing
the ‘fit’ between user, technology and organization
in evaluation studies. The ‘fit’ between user, tech-
nology and organization could serve as a function of
those factors that may influence user acceptance of
the technology. We believe ‘fit’ is an essential ele-
ment to understand user acceptance issues. This pa-
per provides some fundamental basics of ‘fit’, suffi-
cient for researchers to consider the inclusion of ‘fit’
factor within user acceptance factors. We believe ‘fit’
should be addressed in all future evaluation studies.
In future, we are going to validate our proposed
model of user acceptance of healthcare technology.
The model has incorporated a ‘fit’ function which
serves as a core determinant of the factors that influ-
ence users’ intention to use technology. A case study
of the intention of medical students to use medically
related software in their work practice will be con-
ducted to test the applicability of our proposed model.
All the items measured in the questionnaire will be
based on the proposed model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Noor Azizah KS Mohamadali would like to gratefully
acknowledge the funding received from both the Pub-
lic Service Department of Malaysia and the Interna-
tional Islamic University of Malaysia (IIUM) that is
helping to sponsor this research.
REFERENCES
Aggelidis, V. P. and Chatzoglou, P. D. (2009). Using a mod-
ified technology acceptance model in hospitals. Inter-
national Journal of Medical Informatics, 78:115–126.
Ammenwerth, E., Iller, C., and Mahler, C. (2006). IT-
adoption and the interaction of task, technology and
individuals: a fit framework and a case study. BMC
Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 6:1–13.
Ash, J. S., Gorman, P. N., Lavelle, M., and Lyman, J.
(2000). Multiple Perspectives on Physician Order En-
try. American Medical Informatics Association, pages
27–31.
Bleich, H. L. and Slack, W. V. (2010). Reflections on elec-
tronic medical records: When doctors will use them
and when they will not. International Journal of Med-
ical Informatics, 79:1–4.
Bossen, C. (2007). Evaluation of a computerized problem-
oriented medical record in a hospital department:
Does it support daily clinical practice? International
Journal of Medical Informatic, 76:592–600.
Bowns, I., Rotherham, G., and Paisley, S. (1999). Factors
associated with success in the implementation of in-
formation management and technology in the NHS.
Health Informatics Journal, 5:136–145.
Carayon, P., Hundt, A. S., and Wetterneck, T. B. (2010).
Nurses’ acceptance of Smart IV Pump technology. In-
ternational Journal of Medical Informatics, 79:401–
411.
Chang, H. H. (2010). Task-Technology fit and user ac-
ceptance of online auction. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 68:69–89.
Chau, P. Y. K. and Hu, P. J.-H. (2002). Investigating health-
care professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine
technology: an empirical test of competing theories.
Information and Management, 39:297–311.
Despont-Gros, C., Mueller, H., and Lovis, C. (2005). Eval-
uating user interactions with clinical information sys-
tems: A model based on human-computer interaction
models. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 38:244–
255.
Dishaw, M. T. and Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the
technology acceptance model with task-technology fit
constructs. Information & Management, 36:9–21.
Ellis, N. and May, C. (1999). Computers and the gen-
eral practice consultation. Health Informatics Journal,
5:124–127.
Folz-Murphy, N., Partin, M., Williams, L., Harris, C. M.,
and Lauer, M. S. (1998). Physician Use of an Ambu-
latory Medical Record System: Matching Form and
Function. American Medical Informatics Association,
pages 260–264.
George R. Harper, P. and Dawn R. Utley, P. (2001). Orga-
nizational Culture and Successful Information Tech-
nology in Implementation. Engineering Management
Journal, 13:11–15.
Goodhue, D. L. (1995). Understanding User Evaluations of
Information Systems. Management Science, 41:1827–
1844.
Goodhue, D. L., Klein, B. D., and March, S. T. (2000). User
evaluations of IS as surrogates for objective perfor-
mance. Information & Managament, 38:87–101.
Gremy, F., Fessler, J., and Bonnin, M. (1999). Informa-
tion systems evaluation and subjectivity. International
Journal of Medical Informatics, 56:13–23.
Heeks, R. (2006). Health information systems: Failure, suc-
cess and improvisation. International Journal of Med-
ical Informatics, 75:125–137.
Jr., T. R. C., Waitman, L. R., May, A. K., Ozdas, A.,
Lorenzi, N. M., and Gadd, C. S. (2010). Social, or-
ganizational and contextual characteristics of clinical
decision support systems for intensive insulin therapy:
A literature review and case study. International Jour-
nal of Medical Informatics, 79:31–43.
Kaplan, B. and Shaw, N. (2004). Future Directions in Eval-
uation Research: People, Organizational and Social
Issues. Methods Inf Med, 43:215–231.
UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING THE 'FIT' BETWEEN USER, TECHNOLOGY AND ORGANIZATION IN
EVALUATING USER ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY
123