Healthc Inform Res.  2018 Oct;24(4):359-370. 10.4258/hir.2018.24.4.359.

Public Acceptance of a Health Information Exchange in Korea

• Park H
• Park JS
• Lee HR
• Kim S

• KMID: 2434551
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2018.24.4.359

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
We assessed the public acceptance of a health information exchange (HIE) and examined factors that influenced the acceptance and associations among constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
METHODS
We collected data from a survey of 1,000 individuals in Korea, which was administered through a structured questionnaire. We assessed the validity and reliability of the survey instrument with exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha coefficients. We computed descriptive statistics to assess the acceptance and performed regression analyses with a structural equation model to estimate the magnitude and significance of influences among constructs of TAM.
RESULTS
Eighty-seven percent of the respondents were willing to use the technology, and the average level of agreement with the need for the technology was 4.16 on a 5-point Likert scale. The perception of ease of use of the technology significantly influenced perceptions of usefulness and attitudes about the need for HIE. Perceptions of usefulness influenced attitude and behavioral intention to use HIE, and attitude influenced intention. Age showed a wide range of influences throughout the model, and experience with offline-based information exchange and health status also showed noteworthy influences.
CONCLUSIONS
The public acceptance of HIE was high, and influences posited by TAM were mostly confirmed by the study results. The study findings indicated a need for an education and communication strategy tailored by population age, health status, and prior experience with offline-based exchange to gain public buy-in for a successful introduction of the technology.

Keyword

Information Technology; Health Information Exchange; Diffusion of Innovation; Technology Acceptance Model (TAM); Public Opinion

MeSH Terms

Diffusion of Innovation
Education
Health Information Exchange*
Intention
Korea*
Public Opinion
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Conceptual framework used to examine structural relations among constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model. HIE: health information exchange.

Reference

1. Department of Health and Human Services. What is HIE? [Internet]. Washington (DC): Department of Health and Human Services;c2018. cited at 2018 Aug 7. Available from: www.healthit.gov/topic/health-it-and-health-information-exchange-basics/what-hie.

2. The National Alliance for Health Information Technology. Report to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology on Defining key health information technology terms. Washington (DC): Department of Health and Human Services;2008.

3. Kaelber DC, Bates DW. Health information exchange and patient safety. J Biomed Inform. 2007; 40:6 Suppl. S40–S45.

4. Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development. Improving health sector efficiency: the role of information and communication technologies. Paris, France: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development;2010.

5. Walker J, Pan E, Johnston D, Adler-Milstein J, Bates DW, Middleton B. The value of health care information exchange and interoperability. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005; Suppl Web Exclusives. W5-10–W5-18.

6. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Promoting Interoperability (PI) programs [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): Department of Health and Human Services;c2018. cited at 2018 Sep 18. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/index.html.

7. National Health Services Digital. Summary Care Records (SCR) [Internet]. Leeds, UK: National Health Services;c2016. cited at 2018 Sep 18. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160921135209/http://systems.digital.nhs.uk/scr.

8. Canada Health Infoway. A conversation about digital health: annual report 2015-2016 [Internet]. Toronto, Canada: Canada Health Infoway;c2016. cited at 2018 Sep 18. Available from: https://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/component/edocman/resources/i-infoway-i-corporate/annual-reports/3098-annual-report-2015-2016.

9. Australian Digital Health Agency. What is my health record? [Internet]. Sydney, Australia: Australian Digital Health Agency;c2018. cited at 2018 Sep 18. Available from: https://www.myhealthrecord.gov.au/for-healthcare-professionals.

10. Center for Interoperable EHR. EHR system functionality and health information exchange. Seoul, Korea: Elsevier Korea;2010.

11. Park H, Lee SI, Hwang H, Kim Y, Heo EY, Kim JW, et al. Can a health information exchange save healthcare costs? Evidence from a pilot program in South Korea. Int J Med Inform. 2015; 84(9):658–666.

12. Korea Health Industry Development Institute. Establishing and activating the infrastructure of medical information exchange based on health-care information ecosystem. Seoul, Korea: Jeonwooyongsachon;2016.

13. Hersh W, Totten A, Eden K, Devine B, Gorman P, Kassakian S, et al. Health information exchange. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality;2015.

14. Park H, Ock M, Park JS, Lee H, Kim S, Lee S. Stakeholder survey on the incentive program to promote the adoption of health information exchange. J Korea Soc IT Serv. 2017; 16(3):17–45.

15. Ji H, Yoo S, Heo EY, Hwang H, Kim JW. Technology and policy challenges in the adoption and operation of health information exchange systems. Healthc Inform Res. 2017; 23(4):314–321.

16. Ancker JS, Edwards AM, Miller MC, Kaushal R. Consumer perceptions of electronic health information exchange. Am J Prev Med. 2012; 43(1):76–80.

17. Ancker JS, Silver M, Miller MC, Kaushal R. Consumer experience with and attitudes toward health information technology: a nationwide survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; 20(1):152–156.

18. O'Donnell HC, Patel V, Kern LM, Barron Y, Teixeira P, Dhopeshwarkar R, et al. Healthcare consumers' attitudes towards physician and personal use of health information exchange. J Gen Intern Med. 2011; 26(9):1019–1026.

19. Park H, Lee SI, Kim Y, Heo EY, Lee J, Park JH, et al. Patients' perceptions of a health information exchange: a pilot program in South Korea. Int J Med Inform. 2013; 82(2):98–107.

20. Agaku IT, Adisa AO, Ayo-Yusuf OA, Connolly GN. Concern about security and privacy, and perceived control over collection and use of health information are related to withholding of health information from healthcare providers. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014; 21(2):374–378.

21. Dimitropoulos L, Patel V, Scheffler SA, Posnack S. Public attitudes toward health information exchange: perceived benefits and concerns. Am J Manag Care. 2011; 17(12 Spec No.):SP111–SP116.

22. Grande D, Mitra N, Shah A, Wan F, Asch DA. Public preferences about secondary uses of electronic health information. JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 173(19):1798–1806.

23. Whiddett R, Hunter I, Engelbrecht J, Handy J. Patients' attitudes towards sharing their health information. Int J Med Inform. 2006; 75(7):530–541.

24. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci. 1989; 35(8):982–1003.

25. Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Korea national health and examination survey contents [Internet]. Cheongju, Korea: Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;c2016. cited at 2018 Sep 18. Available from: https://knhanes.cdc.go.kr/knhanes/sub02/sub02_03.do#s8_03.

26. Statistics Korea. 2016 Administrative district population by age and sex [Internet]. Daejeon, Korea: Statistics Korea;c2016. cited 2018 Aug 26. Available from: http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1IN1603&conn_path=I3.

27. Patel VN, Dhopeshwarkar RV, Edwards A, Barron Y, Sparenborg J, Kaushal R. Consumer support for health information exchange and personal health records: a regional health information organization survey. J Med Syst. 2012; 36(3):1043–1052.

28. Esmaeilzadeh P, Sambasivan M. Patients' support for health information exchange: a literature review and classification of key factors. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017; 17(1):33.