<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.0 20040830//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/2.0/journalpublishing.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JMI</journal-id>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">JMIR Med Inform</journal-id>
      <journal-title>JMIR Medical Informatics</journal-title>
      <issn pub-type="epub">2291-9694</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>JMIR Publications</publisher-name>
        <publisher-loc>Toronto, Canada</publisher-loc>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">v8i5e15686</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="pmid">32369033</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2196/15686</article-id>
      <article-categories>
        <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
          <subject>Original Paper</subject>
        </subj-group>
        <subj-group subj-group-type="article-type">
          <subject>Original Paper</subject>
        </subj-group>
      </article-categories>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Determining Factors Affecting Nurses’ Acceptance of a Care Plan System Using a Modified Technology Acceptance Model 3: Structural Equation Model With Cross-Sectional Data</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="editor">
          <name>
            <surname>Eysenbach</surname>
            <given-names>Gunther</given-names>
          </name>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="reviewer">
          <name>
            <surname>Lin</surname>
            <given-names>I-Chun</given-names>
          </name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="reviewer">
          <name>
            <surname>Voshall</surname>
            <given-names>Barbara</given-names>
          </name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="reviewer">
          <name>
            <surname>Buchholz</surname>
            <given-names>Susan</given-names>
          </name>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib id="contrib1" contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Ho</surname>
            <given-names>Kuei-Fang</given-names>
          </name>
          <degrees>MSc</degrees>
          <xref rid="aff1" ref-type="aff">1</xref>
          <xref rid="aff2" ref-type="aff">2</xref>
          <ext-link ext-link-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4235-6596</ext-link>
        </contrib>
        <contrib id="contrib2" contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Chang</surname>
            <given-names>Pi-Chen</given-names>
          </name>
          <degrees>RN, PhD</degrees>
          <xref rid="aff2" ref-type="aff">2</xref>
          <ext-link ext-link-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0386-1784</ext-link>
        </contrib>
        <contrib id="contrib3" contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Kurniasari</surname>
            <given-names>Maria Dyah</given-names>
          </name>
          <degrees>RN, MSc</degrees>
          <xref rid="aff2" ref-type="aff">2</xref>
          <xref rid="aff3" ref-type="aff">3</xref>
          <ext-link ext-link-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6460-838X</ext-link>
        </contrib>
        <contrib id="contrib4" contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Susanty</surname>
            <given-names>Sri</given-names>
          </name>
          <degrees>RN, MSc</degrees>
          <xref rid="aff2" ref-type="aff">2</xref>
          <xref rid="aff4" ref-type="aff">4</xref>
          <ext-link ext-link-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9955-5000</ext-link>
        </contrib>
        <contrib id="contrib5" contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Chung</surname>
            <given-names>Min-Huey</given-names>
          </name>
          <degrees>RN, PhD</degrees>
          <xref rid="aff2" ref-type="aff">2</xref>
          <address>
            <institution>School of Nursing</institution>
            <institution>College of Nursing</institution>
            <institution>Taipei Medical University</institution>
            <addr-line>250 Wuxing Street</addr-line>
            <addr-line>Taipei, </addr-line>
            <country>Taiwan</country>
            <phone>886 2736 1661 ext 6317</phone>
            <fax>886 2377 2842</fax>
            <email>minhuey300@tmu.edu.tw</email>
          </address>
          <xref rid="aff5" ref-type="aff">5</xref>
          <ext-link ext-link-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0517-5913</ext-link>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <aff id="aff1">
        <label>1</label>
        <institution>Department of Nursing</institution>
        <institution>Ching Kuo Institute of Management and Health</institution>
        <addr-line>Keelung</addr-line>
        <country>Taiwan</country>
      </aff>
      <aff id="aff2">
        <label>2</label>
        <institution>School of Nursing</institution>
        <institution>College of Nursing</institution>
        <institution>Taipei Medical University</institution>
        <addr-line>Taipei</addr-line>
        <country>Taiwan</country>
      </aff>
      <aff id="aff3">
        <label>3</label>
        <institution>Department of Nursing</institution>
        <institution>Faculty of Medicine and Health Science</institution>
        <institution>Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana</institution>
        <addr-line>Salatiga, Central Java</addr-line>
        <country>Indonesia</country>
      </aff>
      <aff id="aff4">
        <label>4</label>
        <institution>Department of Nursing</institution>
        <institution>Faculty of Medicine</institution>
        <institution>University of Halu Oleo</institution>
        <addr-line>Kendari, Southeast Sulawesi</addr-line>
        <country>Indonesia</country>
      </aff>
      <aff id="aff5">
        <label>5</label>
        <institution>Department of Nursing</institution>
        <institution>Shuang-Ho Hospital</institution>
        <institution>Taipei Medical University</institution>
        <addr-line>New Taipei City</addr-line>
        <country>Taiwan</country>
      </aff>
      <author-notes>
        <corresp>Corresponding Author: Min-Huey Chung <email>minhuey300@tmu.edu.tw</email></corresp>
      </author-notes>
      <pub-date pub-type="collection">
        <month>5</month>
        <year>2020</year>
      </pub-date>
      <pub-date pub-type="epub">
        <day>5</day>
        <month>5</month>
        <year>2020</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>8</volume>
      <issue>5</issue>
      <elocation-id>e15686</elocation-id>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received">
          <day>30</day>
          <month>7</month>
          <year>2019</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="rev-request">
          <day>8</day>
          <month>12</month>
          <year>2019</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="rev-recd">
          <day>2</day>
          <month>2</month>
          <year>2020</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="accepted">
          <day>24</day>
          <month>2</month>
          <year>2020</year>
        </date>
      </history>
      <copyright-statement>©Kuei-Fang Ho, Pi-Chen Chang, Maria Dyah Kurniasari, Sri Susanty, Min-Huey Chung. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (http://medinform.jmir.org), 05.05.2020.</copyright-statement>
      <copyright-year>2020</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
        <p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Medical Informatics, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://medinform.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.</p>
      </license>
      <self-uri xlink:href="https://medinform.jmir.org/2020/5/e15686" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <abstract>
        <sec sec-type="background">
          <title>Background</title>
          <p>Health information technology is used in nursing practice worldwide, and holistic patient care planning can serve as a guide for nursing practice to ensure quality in patient-centered care. However, few studies have thoroughly analyzed users’ acceptance of care plan systems to establish individual plans.</p>
        </sec>
        <sec sec-type="objective">
          <title>Objective</title>
          <p>Based on the technology acceptance model 3 (TAM3), a user technology acceptance model was established to explore what determines the acceptance of care plan systems by users in clinical settings.</p>
        </sec>
        <sec sec-type="methods">
          <title>Methods</title>
          <p>Cross-sectional quantitative data were obtained from 222 nurses at eight hospitals affiliated with public organizations in Taiwan. Using the modified TAM3, the collected data were employed to analyze the determinants of user acceptance of a care plan system through structural equation modeling (SEM). We also employed moderated multiple regression analysis and partial least squares–SEM to test the moderating effects.</p>
        </sec>
        <sec sec-type="results">
          <title>Results</title>
          <p>We verified all significant effects from the use of a care plan system among bivariate patterns in the modified TAM3, except for moderating effects. Our results revealed that the determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use significantly influenced perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, respectively. The results also indicated that nurses’ perceptions of subjective norm (path coefficient=.25, <italic>P</italic>&#60;.001), perceived ease of use (path coefficient=.32, <italic>P</italic>&#60;.001), and perceived usefulness (path coefficient=.31, <italic>P</italic>&#60;.001) had significantly positive effects on their behavioral intention to use the care plan system, accounting for 69% of the total explained variance.</p>
        </sec>
        <sec sec-type="conclusions">
          <title>Conclusions</title>
          <p>By exploring nurses’ acceptance of a care plan system, this study revealed relationships among the variables in TAM3. Our results confirm that the modified TAM3 is an innovative assessment instrument that can help managers understand nurses’ acceptance of health information technology in nursing practice to enhance the adoption of health information technology.</p>
        </sec>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>care plan system</kwd>
        <kwd>technology acceptance model 3</kwd>
        <kwd>behavioral intention</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec sec-type="introduction">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Nurses’ ability to develop detailed care plans considerably influences the quality of patient care [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>]. Care plans are essential tools for promoting holistic care and are used to guide the practice of, communication about, and recording of the provided care in routine care settings [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>]. Suitable individual care plans have been associated with correct medical observations and appropriate nursing diagnoses [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>]. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that such care plans lead to the appropriate implementation of care, accurate judgments of achieved patient goals, and clinically effective nursing interventions. In nursing environments, informatics has been used to improve data management and promote care planning [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>]. With the help of information technology, a care plan system was developed to facilitate the planning, organization, coordination, and recording of the nursing process.</p>
      <p>Several models have been proposed to examine the factors affecting individual reactions to information technology. For example, the user acceptance of technology model is the most popular model used to evaluate information systems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>]. The technology acceptance model (TAM) identifies why individuals adopt new technologies in various domains and is a popular topic of research in the information systems field. The original TAM contains two belief constructs, namely perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU), which have been defined by Venkatesh and Davis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>] and Venkatesh [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>], respectively (see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). These constructs determine an individual’s behavioral intention (BI) toward using information technology; PU has a stronger and more direct impact than does PEOU [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>].</p>
      <p>Venkatesh and Bala [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>] developed a theoretical framework for TAM-related research by synthesizing prior research conducted on the TAM. This theoretical framework involves the social influence, systemic characteristics of determinants, individual differences, and facilitating conditions related to PU and PEOU. Social influence encompasses the social processes and mechanisms that shape individuals’ perceptions of various aspects of a technology. Systemic characteristics refer to the identity of a system and can help individuals perceive the ease of use and usefulness of said system. Individual differences are personal characteristics or demographics that influence PEOU and PU. Finally, facilitating conditions refer to organizational infrastructure and support, which promote the adoption of a technology in a given context. Venkatesh and Bala [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>] combined a theoretical model of the determinants of PEOU and PU with the original TAM and called this extended model TAM3. This model has since proven to be reliable and highly accurate for predicting and explaining user acceptance of various forms of information technology.</p>
      <p>Theoretical processes such as social influence and cognitive instruments explain the relationship between PU and its determinants (ie, subjective norm [SN], image [IMG], job relevance [REL], and result demonstrability [RES]). SN and IMG are categorized as social influence processes, whereas REL and RES are system characteristics that reflect the effects of cognitive instrumental processes. Furthermore, according to the theoretical framework of TAM3, individual differences and facilitating conditions explain the determinants of PEOU through the anchoring and adjustment of human decision making. Anchoring involves four constructs, namely perception of external control (PEC), computer self-efficacy (CSE), computer anxiety (CANX), and computer playfulness (PLAY). These constructs reflect how individuals anchor the PEOU of a target system to their beliefs. The adjustment of perceived enjoyment (ENJ) and objective usability modifies individuals’ PEOU of a target system. Objective usability is determined through the comparison of the amount of time spent by an expert with that spent by a novice to perform a task using the system [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>]. The specific definitions of the determinants of PU and PEOU are provided in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>.</p>
      <p>The variables of the original TAM have the power to predict nurses’ technological acceptance of and intention to use information technology [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>]. One study employed the original TAM to explore nurses’ acceptance of a nursing information system for care planning. The researchers reported that PEOU and PU significantly influenced nurses’ acceptance levels [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>]. Zhang et al [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>] conducted a study on the determinants of PU in the context of mobile homecare nursing to better understand the acceptance of a technology.</p>
      <p>After reviewing the literature on user acceptance of a nursing information system, we noted that most studies were based on the original TAM only or theories regarding the determinants of PU. In addition to studying the relationships of REL and RES with PU, Zhang et al [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>] observed that SN and IMG within an organization were significant antecedents of PU and that PU was the most influential factor in the adoption of mobile information technology by homecare nurses. In other words, to date, few studies have examined the determinants of PEOU or developed a combined model of the determinants of PEOU and PU in the context of nursing information system use. The care plan system in this study was developed by the North American Nursing Diagnosis Association on the basis of their classification system and was validated by our previous research [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>]. This paper presents an empirical study on this care plan system that incorporated the modified TAM3 to explore the acceptance mechanism of a care plan system. The objectives of this study were to (1) identify the determinants of nurses’ acceptance of a care plan system and (2) determine the influence of bivariate patterns in the modified TAM3 on the use of a care plan system.</p>
      <table-wrap position="float" id="table1">
        <label>Table 1</label>
        <caption>
          <p>Definitions of constructs in the modified technology acceptance model 3.</p>
        </caption>
        <table width="1000" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="1" rules="groups" frame="hsides">
          <col width="30"/>
          <col width="30"/>
          <col width="190"/>
          <col width="0"/>
          <col width="750"/>
          <thead>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td colspan="4">Construct</td>
              <td>Definition</td>
            </tr>
          </thead>
          <tbody>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td colspan="4">
                <bold>Perceived usefulness</bold>
              </td>
              <td>The degree to which an individual believes that using a technology will enhance his or her job performance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>]</td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td colspan="3">
                <bold>Social influence</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>Subjective norm</td>
              <td colspan="2">An individual’s perception of whether the people who are important to them think that they should use the target system [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>]</td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>Image</td>
              <td colspan="2">The degree to which an individual perceives that using a technology will enhance their image or status in their social circle [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>]</td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td colspan="3">
                <bold>Cognitive instruments</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>Job relevance</td>
              <td colspan="2">One’s perception of a technology as facilitative to their job [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>]</td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>Result demonstrability</td>
              <td colspan="2">An individual’s perception of the tangible (observable and communicable) results from using the target system [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>]</td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td colspan="4">
                <bold>Perceived ease of use</bold>
              </td>
              <td>The degree to which an individual believes that using a technology will be free of effort [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>]</td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td colspan="3">
                <bold>Anchoring</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>Perception of external control</td>
              <td colspan="2">Individuals’ perceptions regarding the availability of organizational responses to facilitate the use of a target system [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>]</td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>Computer self-efficacy</td>
              <td colspan="2">Individuals’ beliefs regarding their abilities to use information technology [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>]</td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>Computer anxiety</td>
              <td colspan="2">An individual’s degree of fear or apprehension when they use or consider using a target system [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>]</td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>Computer playfulness</td>
              <td colspan="2">The degree of perceived spontaneity in an individual’s interaction with a technology [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>]</td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td colspan="3">
                <bold>Adjustment</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>Perceived enjoyment</td>
              <td colspan="2">The performance-related consequences of using a target system and the degree to which using said system is perceived to be enjoyable [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>]</td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td colspan="4">
                <bold>Moderator</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>Output quality</td>
              <td colspan="2">The strength of individuals’ beliefs regarding how well a system enables the performance of a task with respect to said individuals’ job goals [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>]</td>
            </tr>
            <tr valign="top">
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>
                <break/>
              </td>
              <td>Voluntariness</td>
              <td colspan="2">The rating range of voluntary use of a target system [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>]</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </table-wrap>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="methods">
      <title>Methods</title>
      <sec>
        <title>Theoretical Framework of the Technology Acceptance Model 3</title>
        <p>This study proposed a modified version of TAM3, developed by Venkatesh and Bala [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>], to express user acceptance of a care plan system. The study hypotheses are described as follows (<xref rid="figure1" ref-type="fig">Figure 1</xref>): (1) PU and PEOU have significant relationships with BI (H1 and H2, respectively); (2) the effects of SN on BI (H3), SN on IMG (H4), and SN and IMG on PU (H5 and H6, respectively) are related to social influence; (3) REL and RES represent the cognitive instrumental processes of PU (H7 and H8, respectively); (4) PEOU has a significant relationship with PU (H9); (5) the relationship of PEC, which refers to personnel beliefs, with PEOU (H10) is a facilitating condition; (6) the effects of CSE, PLAY, and CANX on PEOU (H11, H12, and H13, respectively) represent individual differences in terms of general beliefs about computers and computer use; and (7) ENJ can be adjusted to predict the PEOU of a system (H14). The degree to which the adjustment of objective usability determines the PEOU of a target system was not validated in this study.</p>
        <fig id="figure1" position="float">
          <label>Figure 1</label>
          <caption>
            <p>Modified technology acceptance model 3 adopted in this study. Hm1: hypothesis moderator 1; Hm2: hypothesis moderator 2.</p>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="medinform_v8i5e15686_fig1.png" alt-version="no" mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple"/>
        </fig>
        <p>Venkatesh and Bala [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>] included output quality (OUT) as a moderating variable (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). REL on PU was stronger when OUT was higher. In addition, to distinguish voluntary use from mandatory use, the researchers included voluntariness (VOL) as a moderator (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>) of the relationship between SN and BI.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
        <title>Study Design and Sample</title>
        <p>This cross-sectional study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Tri-Service General Hospital (TSGHIRB No. B-104-13). The study period was from October 2015 to January 2016. All participants were registered nurses aged older than 20 years who had been using a care plan system for longer than 1 month. Using convenience sampling, 250 nurses were recruited from eight hospitals affiliated with public organizations in Taiwan. Data for this study were drawn from the same sample as that used in our previous study but were employed for different purposes and presented as a different type of data in this study. After informed consent was obtained from all participants, a structured questionnaire was employed for data collection.</p>
        <p>Hair et al [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>] proposed the estimation of the minimum sample size in partial least squares (PLS)–structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis with multiple regression models by applying Cohen [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>] definitions; effect sizes of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 were considered small, medium, and large, respectively. To facilitate PLS-SEM analysis, the research sample size was calculated based on the recommendations of Hair et al [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>]. The sample size was calculated using the G*Power 3.0 software program (UCLA) with a power of .80, a medium effect size of 0.15, and alpha set at .05 for multiple regression of the maximum number of variables in a construct in our research framework, with five predictors used. A minimum sample size of 92 was necessary. Furthermore, a minimum sample size of 200 is often recommended for PLS-SEM [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22">22</xref>]. Therefore, considering the 25% attrition rate, we recruited 250 nurses. The valid questionnaires completed by 222 nurses were used for data analysis, yielding a response rate of 88.80%.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
        <title>Measures</title>
        <p>Our questionnaire collected the demographic data of the nurses, and self-reported data were collected using the questionnaire about TAM3 designed by Venkatesh and Bala [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>]. Following approval from the original author, 50 items in the modified TAM3 questionnaire composed the constructs investigated in our research model.</p>
        <p>The modified TAM3 questionnaire consisted of the TAM constructs PU, PEOU, and BI; the determinants of PEOU (CSE, PEC, CANX, PLAY, and ENJ); the determinants of PU (SN, IMG, REL, and RES); and the moderators OUT and VOL. Except for the construct of CSE, items for all constructs were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The CSE items were measured on a 10-point Guttman scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). The TAM3 questionnaire had high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha ranging from .76 to .93) and high validity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>].</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
        <title>Data Analysis</title>
        <p>Descriptive statistics were employed using SPSS Statistics version 20.0 (IBM Corp) to analyze sociodemographic variables and use characteristics of the care plan system. We estimated the measurement model, tested the structural model, and analyzed the relationships among all variables through PLS-SEM in SmartPLS version 3.0 (University of Hamburg).</p>
        <sec>
          <title>Measurement Model Estimation</title>
          <p>In accordance with the model evaluation criteria proposed by Hair et al [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>], we assessed reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Internal consistency reliability was ensured if the composite reliability (CR) scores of all constructs and Cronbach alpha were higher than .70. Indicator reliability was ensured if all indicators’ outer loadings were greater than .70. Convergent validity was confirmed if the average variance extracted (AVE) scores of all constructs were higher than .50. The square root of the AVE of each construct needed to be higher than the correlation between the latent variables, and all the indicators’ outer loadings on their own constructs had to be higher than their cross-loadings with other constructs to satisfy the requirements of discriminant validity.</p>
        </sec>
        <sec>
          <title>Moderating Effect Estimation</title>
          <p>The PLS approach in SmartPLS and moderated multiple regression analysis in SPSS version 20.0 for Windows were applied to analyze and interpret interactions. We used SmartPLS version 3.0 to analyze the coefficients of interaction terms. The significance of a moderator was confirmed by <italic>t</italic> value (<italic>t</italic> &#62;1.96) for all interaction effects (path coefficients). SPSS version 20.0 for Windows was used to calculate the model fit (<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> without moderator), new model fit (<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> with moderator), difference between these <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> values, and significance of this difference for all endogenous latent variables.</p>
        </sec>
        <sec>
          <title>Structural Model Analysis</title>
          <p>To evaluate the multicollinearity of the structural model, two correlated variable correlation coefficients had to be &#60;.85 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref23">23</xref>]. A standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) lower than .10 indicated acceptable goodness of fit in the model [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref24">24</xref>]. The coefficient of determination values (<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup>) representing weak, moderate, and substantial were .25, .50, and .75, respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>]. PLS-SEM with a bootstrapping procedure was employed to test the study hypotheses and analyze the path coefficients (significance level=5%).</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="results">
      <title>Results</title>
      <sec>
        <title>Participant Characteristics</title>
        <p>The respondents reported their sociodemographic characteristics and use of the target information system. Of the 222 nurses, 95.5% (212/222) were women and 4.5% (10/222) were men. In total, 4 (1.8%) had a senior vocational school degree in nursing, 88 (39.6%) had an associate degree, and 130 (58.6%) had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Most participants had more than 6 years of professional nursing experience (150/222, 67.6%). The use of health information technology for less than 6 years had the highest representation throughout the study sample (190/222, 85.6%). Most of the participants (141/222, 63.5%) did not feel under pressure when using a computer.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
        <title>Measurement Model Results</title>
        <p>As presented in <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="app1">Multimedia Appendix 1</xref>, for internal consistency reliability, all Cronbach alpha scores for the study variables were higher than .70, and CR scores ranged from .84 to .96, which were all acceptable. The outer loadings of all indicators were above .70, which implied satisfactory indicator reliability (see <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="app1">Multimedia Appendix 1</xref>). <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="app1">Multimedia Appendix 1</xref> indicates that AVE scores for all variables were above .64. This result satisfied the requirement for convergent validity. To confirm the discriminant validity of constructs, we examined whether the square root of the AVE from each construct (see <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="app1">Multimedia Appendix 1</xref>) exceeded the correlation between the constructs in the research model. Moreover, as presented in <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="app2">Multimedia Appendix 2</xref>, we ensured that all indicators had outer loadings in relation to their own latent variables that were higher than their cross-loadings with other constructs. Therefore, we concluded that the measurement model satisfied the criteria for internal consistency, indicator, convergent, and discriminant validity.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
        <title>Analysis of Moderating Effects</title>
        <p>Moderated multiple regression analysis and PLS-SEM were employed to test the moderating effects. All test results are presented in <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="app3">Multimedia Appendix 3</xref>. The <italic>t</italic> values for all path coefficients were lower than 1.96, and differences among the <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> values of all endogenous latent variables were minor and nonsignificant. Therefore, VOL and OUT did not exert any moderating effects.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
        <title>Structural Model Analysis and Hypothesis Testing</title>
        <p>In this study, all bivariate correlations were lower than .85 (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="app1">Multimedia Appendix 1</xref>). Therefore, multicollinearity was avoided. <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="app4">Multimedia Appendix 4</xref> and <xref rid="figure2" ref-type="fig">Figure 2</xref> present the explained variance of each construct. SN, IMG, REL, RES, and PEOU yielded approximately 79% of the variance for PU. The effects of CSE, PEC, CANX, PLAY, and ENJ on PEOU yielded approximately 72% of the total variance. The combination of SN, PEOU, and PU accounted for 69% of the variance observed for BI. This result indicated that the model explained high levels of variance.</p>
        <fig id="figure2" position="float">
          <label>Figure 2</label>
          <caption>
            <p>Analysis path of the structural model. <sup>a</sup><italic>P</italic>&#60;.05. <sup>b</sup><italic>P</italic>&#60;.01. <sup>c</sup><italic>P</italic>&#60;.001. Note: No moderator variable was used in this model.</p>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="medinform_v8i5e15686_fig2.png" alt-version="no" mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple"/>
        </fig>
        <p>In our research model, the SRMR was .09, which indicated good model fit of the data. Therefore, the model was considered acceptable. The total indirect effect and total effect of all constructs on BI toward using the care plan system are presented in <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="app4">Multimedia Appendix 4</xref>, including the total indirect effects of SN (.11) and PEOU (.08) on BI. Combined with the direct effect, the total effects of SN (.36), PU (.31), and PEOU (.40) on BI were calculated.</p>
        <p>A bootstrapping procedure was used to calculate the statistical significance of all path coefficients. Our researchers selected 5000 samples and recruited 222 nurses to estimate the path coefficients. As indicated by the PLS analysis results presented in <xref rid="figure2" ref-type="fig">Figure 2</xref> and <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="app3">Multimedia Appendix 3</xref> and <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="app4">Multimedia Appendix 4</xref>, all study hypotheses were supported by the data. The results revealed that SN, PEOU, and PU (path coefficients range=.25–.32) were all significant determinants of BI (<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup>=.69). SN, IMG, REL, RES, and PEOU (path coefficients range=.17–.25) all had a significant effect on PU (<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup>=.79). PEOU (<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup>=.72) was significantly influenced by PEC, CSE, PLAY, ENJ (path coefficients range=.19–.28) and CANX (path coefficient=−.12).</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="discussion">
      <title>Discussion</title>
      <sec>
        <title>Principal Findings</title>
        <p>This study is the first to reveal the ability of TAM3 to comprehensively explore the determinants of BI for use of a care plan system. Our results indicated that the research model accounted for 69% of the variance in the care plan system, and all hypotheses supported the use of TAM3 except for the nonsignificant moderating effects of VOL and OUT. Few studies in nursing settings have explored user acceptance based on the determinants of PEOU and the combination of such determinants with those of PU. Our study empirically demonstrated that the determinants of PEOU influence PEOU and the determinants of PU and PEOU influence PU and SN, PEOU, with PU consequently predicting BI. Well-organized health information technology positively influences nurses’ intentions to use a care plan system in professional settings [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref25">25</xref>]. This study provided an innovative methodology for evaluating and understanding nurses’ acceptance of and need for a care plan system to implement well-organized health information technology and improve performance in nursing practice.</p>
        <p>Using the modified TAM3, our research model explained 69% of the total variance, which was more than that explained by other TAM studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>]. Our study results demonstrated that TAM3 is highly suitable for determining nurses’ perceptions of using health information technology in nursing settings. Wu and Shen [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref26">26</xref>] indicated that PEOU, PU, and SN all had direct effects on health care professionals’ BI. Moreover, in health care environments, PEOU and PU are key factors influencing the acceptance of health information technology by nursing personnel [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref27">27</xref>]. Using TAM3 with PU, PEOU, and SN to analyze users’ BIs, we observed 69% variance for BI. In addition, SN, PEOU, and PU all had strong positive effects on BI, with path coefficients of .25 (<italic>P</italic>&#60;.001), .32 (<italic>P</italic>&#60;.001), and .31 (<italic>P</italic>&#60;.01), respectively. In this study, the significant total effects of SN (path coefficient=.36), PU (path coefficient=.31), and PEOU (path coefficient=.40) on BI were also notable. Therefore, we assumed that the constructs of SN, PEOU, and PU are powerful predictors of nurses’ BI to use a care plan system and contribute to the substantial explained variance of the modified TAM3. We suggest that implementing new health information technology in routine nursing care would improve related performance in nursing practice [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref25">25</xref>], broaden professional perspectives, and highlight preferences to enhance the ease of use of health information technology and improve key individual’s opinions regarding the use of health information technology.</p>
        <p>Using the modified TAM3, this study empirically verified the collected data and confirmed that the determinants of PEOU for measuring nurses’ BI as well as all the determinants of PEOU had significant relationships with PEOU and explained 72% of the variance of PEOU. Moreover, we observed that PEOU had not only the most significant influence on BI to use the care plan system but also the strongest direct effect on BI. This result differed from those of previous studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref25">25</xref>]. In the pooled data for TAM3, PEC, CSE, PLAY (path coefficients range=.15–.33), and CANX (path coefficient=−.18) had a direct relationship with PEOU, and the total explained variance for PEOU was 52% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>]. The result of our research proved that PEC, CSE, PLAY, ENJ (path coefficients range=.19–.28), and CANX (path coefficient=−.12) significantly influence PEOU and jointly explain 72% of the variance in PEOU (<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup>=.72). We posit that this research model with all the determinants of PEOU differed considerably from those used in previous studies, which adopted the modified TAM or the determinants of PU. That is, the TAM3 model provides a comprehensive set of PEOU determinants and an exhaustive explanation of the power of the PEOU of a care plan system. On the basis of our results, we recommend increasing individuals’ BI to use computers to perform speciﬁc tasks, increase cognitive spontaneity related to computers, enhance enjoyment during the use of a target health information technology system, and reduce the level of fear in individuals’ interactions with health information technology to promote nurses’ PEOU toward the care plan system.</p>
        <p>By comparing the direct effect of SN, IMG, REL, RES, and PEOU on PU in this study with the pooled data for TAM3 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>], we obtained SN, IMG, REL, RES, and PEOU values of .21/.04, .18/.24, .19/.03, .17/.26, and .25/.08, respectively. In this study, the determinants of PU explained 79% of the variance in PU (<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup>=.79). As indicated in the pooled data of TAM3, PU is jointly predicted by the determinants of PU, with 67% of the total variance explained (<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup>=.67) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>]. By contrast, other studies that adopted the modified model with the determinants of PU have predicted that PU accounts for 46% to 59% of the explained variance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref28">28</xref>]. Our results were consistent with those of some previous studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref28">28</xref>], where nurses’ PU of a care plan system was enhanced when they perceived that key individuals wanted them to use the health information technology in question. In addition, nurses’ social status is enhanced when using said health information technology. Moreover, the significant relationships of REL (path coefficient=.19) and RES (path coefficient=.17) with PU in our study indicated that the nurses perceived health information technology as appropriate to their work. More tangibly, health information technology had a positive influence on the PU of the care plan system. When a user perceives that health information technology is useful, they also believe that it is easy to use [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>]. Another key finding in our study was that PEOU had the most significant effect on PU. The determinants of PU in TAM3 are appropriate constructs for evaluating user belief regarding the usefulness of health information technology in nursing settings.</p>
        <p>Venkatesh and Bala [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>] argued that VOL and OUT are influential moderating variables in contexts where information technology is used. By contrast, our results revealed that the moderating variables VOL and OUT had no significant effects on the care plan system. Sun and Zhang [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref29">29</xref>] indicated that a weaker moderating effect elicits a stronger response from a more experienced user. The moderating effect of VOL weakens over time. Zhang and Cocosila [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>] reported that the experience moderator did not influence homecare nurses’ beliefs regarding the use of information technology. We assumed that all of our participants had accumulated considerable experience of using a care plan system and that this led to the aforementioned nonsignificant moderating effects. The other reason for these effects may have been that our study adopted cross-sectional quantitative data to determine user acceptance, whereas TAM3 has generally been employed in longitudinal ﬁeld studies. Therefore, the moderators had no significant effects.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
        <title>Limitations and Recommendations</title>
        <p>The first limitation of this study is that the cross-sectional data used were all collected at the same time. This could have yielded nonsignificant moderating effects. Moreover, our participants had already used the care plan system for more than 1 month. Therefore, this may have led to the moderating effects of VOL on the bivariables weakening with increasing experience. To avoid confusion in the results, the experience moderator was not measured in this study. We recommend that in the future, researchers explore the factors of user acceptance in the early stages of health information technology implementation and conduct longitudinal ﬁeld studies.</p>
        <p>Second, individual knowledge, attitude, and skill level with respect to nursing are crucial for designing patient-centered care plans and improving patient care quality [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref30">30</xref>]. Because the decision-making aspect of care planning varies from person to person and nursing students have insufficient nursing knowledge to design suitable care plans for patients, the measurement of objective usability—a comparison between the amounts of time spent by an expert and a novice to perform a task using the system—is conflicted. Therefore, we did not examine the objective usability variable in this study. To examine the relationship between objective usability and PEOU, future studies could employ a simple operating system, such as a patient physical data record system.</p>
        <p>In health care, information technology developments adapt to changing needs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>]. To increase the use of information technology and improve its performance, we recommend that health care institutions adopt a model that measures nurses’ perceptions of health information technology use to identify why the implementation of health information technology is accepted or rejected.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
        <title>Conclusion</title>
        <p>We applied TAM3 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>] to validate and measure determinants that affect the BI of nurses to use a care plan system. The critical determinants affecting nurses’ acceptance of a care plan system were empirically examined. The results emphasize that SN, PEOU, and PU all predicted users’ BI to use the care plan system, and the determinants of PU and PEOU significantly influenced PU and PEOU. This research contributes to the exploration of user acceptance and to a better understanding of care plan system use in routine nursing practice.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <app-group>
      <supplementary-material id="app1">
        <label>Multimedia Appendix 1</label>
        <p>Cronbach alpha, composite reliability, outer loadings, average variance extracted, and Pearson correlation coefficients for the construct variables.</p>
        <media xlink:href="medinform_v8i5e15686_app1.docx" xlink:title="DOCX File , 16 KB"/>
      </supplementary-material>
      <supplementary-material id="app2">
        <label>Multimedia Appendix 2</label>
        <p>Outer loadings and cross-loadings of the study variables.</p>
        <media xlink:href="medinform_v8i5e15686_app2.docx" xlink:title="DOCX File , 20 KB"/>
      </supplementary-material>
      <supplementary-material id="app3">
        <label>Multimedia Appendix 3</label>
        <p>Path coefficients and results of the moderating effects analysis and research hypotheses.</p>
        <media xlink:href="medinform_v8i5e15686_app3.docx" xlink:title="DOCX File , 25 KB"/>
      </supplementary-material>
      <supplementary-material id="app4">
        <label>Multimedia Appendix 4</label>
        <p>Results of hypothesis testing, R2 calculation, and determining the total effect and total indirect effect for all variables with respect to behavioral intention to use.</p>
        <media xlink:href="medinform_v8i5e15686_app4.docx" xlink:title="DOCX File , 16 KB"/>
      </supplementary-material>
    </app-group>
    <glossary>
      <title>Abbreviations</title>
      <def-list>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb1">AVE</term>
          <def>
            <p>average variance extracted</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb2">BI</term>
          <def>
            <p>behavioral intention</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb3">CANX</term>
          <def>
            <p>computer anxiety</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb4">CR</term>
          <def>
            <p>composite reliability</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb5">CSE</term>
          <def>
            <p>computer self-efficacy</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb6">ENJ</term>
          <def>
            <p>perceived enjoyment</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb7">IMG</term>
          <def>
            <p>image</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb8">OUT</term>
          <def>
            <p>output quality</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb9">PEC</term>
          <def>
            <p>perception of external control</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb10">PEOU</term>
          <def>
            <p>perceived ease of use</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb11">PLAY</term>
          <def>
            <p>computer playfulness</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb12">PLS</term>
          <def>
            <p>partial least squares</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb13">PU</term>
          <def>
            <p>perceived usefulness</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb14">REL</term>
          <def>
            <p>job relevance</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb15">RES</term>
          <def>
            <p>result demonstrability</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb16">SEM</term>
          <def>
            <p>structural equation modeling</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb17">SN</term>
          <def>
            <p>subjective norm</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb18">SRMR</term>
          <def>
            <p>standardized root mean square residual</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb19">TAM</term>
          <def>
            <p>technology acceptance model</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
        <def-item>
          <term id="abb20">VOL</term>
          <def>
            <p>voluntariness</p>
          </def>
        </def-item>
      </def-list>
    </glossary>
    <fn-group>
      <fn fn-type="conflict">
        <p>None declared.</p>
      </fn>
    </fn-group>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <label>1</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Lee</surname>
              <given-names>TT</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Nursing diagnoses: factors affecting their use in charting standardized care plans</article-title>
          <source>J Clin Nurs</source>
          <year>2005</year>
          <month>05</month>
          <volume>14</volume>
          <issue>5</issue>
          <fpage>640</fpage>
          <lpage>647</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00909.x</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">15840079</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="pii">JCN909</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <label>2</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Patiraki</surname>
              <given-names>E</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Katsaragakis</surname>
              <given-names>S</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Dreliozi</surname>
              <given-names>A</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Prezerakos</surname>
              <given-names>P</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Nursing care plans based on NANDA, nursing interventions classification, and nursing outcomes classification: the investigation of the effectiveness of an educational intervention in Greece</article-title>
          <source>Int J Nurs Knowledge</source>
          <year>2017</year>
          <month>04</month>
          <volume>28</volume>
          <issue>2</issue>
          <fpage>88</fpage>
          <lpage>93</lpage>
          <comment>
            <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26472136"/>
          </comment>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/2047-3095.12120</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">26472136</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="pmcid">PMC6120146</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <label>3</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Ballantyne</surname>
              <given-names>H</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Developing nursing care plans</article-title>
          <source>Nurs Stand</source>
          <year>2016</year>
          <month>02</month>
          <day>24</day>
          <volume>30</volume>
          <issue>26</issue>
          <fpage>51</fpage>
          <lpage>57</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7748/ns.30.26.51.s48</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">26907149</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <label>4</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="book">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Gulanick</surname>
              <given-names>M</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Myers</surname>
              <given-names>J</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <source>Nursing Care Plans—E-Book: Diagnoses, Interventions, and Outcomes</source>
          <year>2016</year>
          <publisher-loc>Philadelphia</publisher-loc>
          <publisher-name>Elsevier Health Sciences</publisher-name>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <label>5</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Griffiths</surname>
              <given-names>J</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Hutchings</surname>
              <given-names>W</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>The wider implications of an audit of care plan documentation</article-title>
          <source>J Clin Nurs</source>
          <year>1999</year>
          <month>01</month>
          <volume>8</volume>
          <issue>1</issue>
          <fpage>57</fpage>
          <lpage>65</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1046/j.1365-2702.1999.00217.x</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">10214170</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <label>6</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="book">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Keenan</surname>
              <given-names>G</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Yakel</surname>
              <given-names>E</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Tschannen</surname>
              <given-names>D</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Mandeville</surname>
              <given-names>M</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <person-group person-group-type="editor">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Hughes</surname>
              <given-names>RG</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Documentation and the nurse care planning process</article-title>
          <source>Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses</source>
          <year>2008</year>
          <publisher-loc>Rockville</publisher-loc>
          <publisher-name>Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality</publisher-name>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <label>7</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="web">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Fuller</surname>
              <given-names>C</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <source>Challenges in nursing informatics</source>
          <access-date>2019-12-21</access-date>
          <comment>
            <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://rn-journal.com/journal-of-nursing/challenges-in-nursing-informatics">http://rn-journal.com/journal-of-nursing/challenges-in-nursing-informatics</ext-link>
          </comment>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <label>8</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="web">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Chuttur</surname>
              <given-names>M</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <source>Working Papers on Information Systems</source>
          <year>2009</year>
          <access-date>2020-03-13</access-date>
          <comment>Overview of the technology acceptance model: origins, developments and future directions<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1289&#38;context=sprouts_all">https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1289&#38;context=sprouts_all</ext-link>
                                                </comment>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <label>9</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Venkatesh</surname>
              <given-names>V</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Davis</surname>
              <given-names>FD</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies</article-title>
          <source>Manag Sci</source>
          <year>2000</year>
          <month>02</month>
          <volume>46</volume>
          <issue>2</issue>
          <fpage>186</fpage>
          <lpage>204</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <label>10</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Venkatesh</surname>
              <given-names>V</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model</article-title>
          <source>Info Syst Res</source>
          <year>2000</year>
          <month>12</month>
          <volume>11</volume>
          <issue>4</issue>
          <fpage>342</fpage>
          <lpage>365</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <label>11</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Venkatesh</surname>
              <given-names>V</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Bala</surname>
              <given-names>H</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions</article-title>
          <source>Decis Sci</source>
          <year>2008</year>
          <month>05</month>
          <volume>39</volume>
          <issue>2</issue>
          <fpage>273</fpage>
          <lpage>315</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <label>12</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Kuo</surname>
              <given-names>K</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Liu</surname>
              <given-names>C</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Ma</surname>
              <given-names>C</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>An investigation of the effect of nurses’ technology readiness on the acceptance of mobile electronic medical record systems</article-title>
          <source>BMC Med Inform Decis Mak</source>
          <year>2013</year>
          <month>8</month>
          <day>12</day>
          <volume>13</volume>
          <issue>1</issue>
          <fpage>88</fpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/1472-6947-13-88</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <label>13</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Kowitlawakul</surname>
              <given-names>Y</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>The technology acceptance model: predicting nurses' intention to use telemedicine technology (eICU)</article-title>
          <source>Comput Inform Nurs</source>
          <year>2011</year>
          <month>07</month>
          <volume>29</volume>
          <issue>7</issue>
          <fpage>411</fpage>
          <lpage>418</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181f9dd4a</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">20975536</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <label>14</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Dharmarajan</surname>
              <given-names>B</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Gangadharan</surname>
              <given-names>K</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Applying technology acceptance (TAM) model to determine the acceptance of nursing information system (NIS) for computer generated nursing care plan among nurses</article-title>
          <source>Int J Comput Trends Technol</source>
          <year>2013</year>
          <volume>4</volume>
          <issue>8</issue>
          <fpage>2625</fpage>
          <lpage>2629</lpage>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <label>15</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Zhang</surname>
              <given-names>H</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Cocosila</surname>
              <given-names>M</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Archer</surname>
              <given-names>N</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Factors of adoption of mobile information technology by homecare nurses: a technology acceptance model 2 approach</article-title>
          <source>Comput Inform Nurs</source>
          <year>2010</year>
          <volume>28</volume>
          <issue>1</issue>
          <fpage>49</fpage>
          <lpage>56</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181c0474a</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">19940621</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="pii">00024665-201001000-00011</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <label>16</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Ho</surname>
              <given-names>K</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Ho</surname>
              <given-names>C</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Chung</surname>
              <given-names>M</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance of the nursing process information system</article-title>
          <source>PLoS One</source>
          <year>2019</year>
          <volume>14</volume>
          <issue>6</issue>
          <fpage>e0217622</fpage>
          <comment>
            <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217622"/>
          </comment>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pone.0217622</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">31163076</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="pii">PONE-D-18-32547</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="pmcid">PMC6548361</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <label>17</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Moore</surname>
              <given-names>GC</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Benbasat</surname>
              <given-names>I</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation</article-title>
          <source>Info Syst Res</source>
          <year>1991</year>
          <month>09</month>
          <volume>2</volume>
          <issue>3</issue>
          <fpage>192</fpage>
          <lpage>222</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1287/isre.2.3.192</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <label>18</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Simonson</surname>
              <given-names>MR</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Maurer</surname>
              <given-names>M</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Montag-Torardi</surname>
              <given-names>M</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Whitaker</surname>
              <given-names>M</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Development of a standardized test of computer literacy and a computer anxiety index</article-title>
          <source>J Educ Comput Res</source>
          <year>1995</year>
          <month>01</month>
          <volume>3</volume>
          <issue>2</issue>
          <fpage>231</fpage>
          <lpage>247</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2190/7chy-5cm0-4d00-6jcg</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <label>19</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="book">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Hair</surname>
              <given-names>J</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Hult</surname>
              <given-names>G</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Ringle</surname>
              <given-names>C</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Sarstedt</surname>
              <given-names>M</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <source>A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)</source>
          <year>2013</year>
          <publisher-loc>Thousand Oaks</publisher-loc>
          <publisher-name>Sage Publications</publisher-name>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <label>20</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Cohen</surname>
              <given-names>J</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>A power primer</article-title>
          <source>Psychol Bull</source>
          <year>1992</year>
          <month>07</month>
          <volume>112</volume>
          <issue>1</issue>
          <fpage>155</fpage>
          <lpage>159</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">19565683</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref21">
        <label>21</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Marsh</surname>
              <given-names>HW</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Hau</surname>
              <given-names>KT</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Balla</surname>
              <given-names>JR</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Grayson</surname>
              <given-names>D</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis</article-title>
          <source>Multivariate Behav Res</source>
          <year>1998</year>
          <month>04</month>
          <day>01</day>
          <volume>33</volume>
          <issue>2</issue>
          <fpage>181</fpage>
          <lpage>220</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">26771883</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref22">
        <label>22</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="book">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Hair</surname>
              <given-names>J</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <source>Multivariate Data Analysis</source>
          <year>2006</year>
          <publisher-loc>Upper Saddle River</publisher-loc>
          <publisher-name>Pearson Prentice Hall</publisher-name>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref23">
        <label>23</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="book">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Awang</surname>
              <given-names>Z</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <source>Research Methodology and Data Analysis</source>
          <year>2012</year>
          <publisher-loc>Selangor</publisher-loc>
          <publisher-name>Penerbit Universiti Teknologi MARA Press</publisher-name>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref24">
        <label>24</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Hu</surname>
              <given-names>L</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Bentler</surname>
              <given-names>PM</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification</article-title>
          <source>Psychol Methods</source>
          <year>1998</year>
          <volume>3</volume>
          <issue>4</issue>
          <fpage>424</fpage>
          <lpage>453</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref25">
        <label>25</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Lu</surname>
              <given-names>C</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Hsiao</surname>
              <given-names>J</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Chen</surname>
              <given-names>R</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Factors determining nurse acceptance of hospital information systems</article-title>
          <source>Comput Inform Nurs</source>
          <year>2012</year>
          <month>05</month>
          <volume>30</volume>
          <issue>5</issue>
          <fpage>257</fpage>
          <lpage>264</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1097/NCN.0b013e318224b4cf</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">22228251</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref26">
        <label>26</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Wu</surname>
              <given-names>J</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Shen</surname>
              <given-names>W</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Lin</surname>
              <given-names>L</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Greenes</surname>
              <given-names>RA</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Bates</surname>
              <given-names>DW</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Testing the technology acceptance model for evaluating healthcare professionals' intention to use an adverse event reporting system</article-title>
          <source>Int J Qual Health Care</source>
          <year>2008</year>
          <month>04</month>
          <volume>20</volume>
          <issue>2</issue>
          <fpage>123</fpage>
          <lpage>129</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/intqhc/mzm074</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">18222963</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="pii">mzm074</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref27">
        <label>27</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Hsiao</surname>
              <given-names>J</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Wu</surname>
              <given-names>W</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Chen</surname>
              <given-names>R</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Factors of accepting pain management decision support systems by nurse anesthetists</article-title>
          <source>BMC Med Inform Decis Mak</source>
          <year>2013</year>
          <month>01</month>
          <day>29</day>
          <volume>13</volume>
          <fpage>16</fpage>
          <comment>
            <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6947-13-16"/>
          </comment>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/1472-6947-13-16</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">23360305</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="pii">1472-6947-13-16</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="pmcid">PMC3563435</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref28">
        <label>28</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Yu</surname>
              <given-names>P</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Li</surname>
              <given-names>H</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Gagnon</surname>
              <given-names>M</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Health IT acceptance factors in long-term care facilities: a cross-sectional survey</article-title>
          <source>Int J Med Inform</source>
          <year>2009</year>
          <month>04</month>
          <volume>78</volume>
          <issue>4</issue>
          <fpage>219</fpage>
          <lpage>229</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.07.006</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">18768345</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="pii">S1386-5056(08)00126-3</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref29">
        <label>29</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Sun</surname>
              <given-names>H</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Zhang</surname>
              <given-names>P</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance</article-title>
          <source>Int J Hum Comput Stud</source>
          <year>2006</year>
          <month>2</month>
          <volume>64</volume>
          <issue>2</issue>
          <fpage>53</fpage>
          <lpage>78</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.013</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref30">
        <label>30</label>
        <nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
          <person-group person-group-type="author">
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Tuinman</surname>
              <given-names>A</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>de Greef</surname>
              <given-names>MHG</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Krijnen</surname>
              <given-names>WP</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Paans</surname>
              <given-names>W</given-names>
            </name>
            <name name-style="western">
              <surname>Roodbol</surname>
              <given-names>PF</given-names>
            </name>
          </person-group>
          <article-title>Accuracy of documentation in the nursing care plan in long-term institutional care</article-title>
          <source>Geriatr Nurs</source>
          <year>2017</year>
          <volume>38</volume>
          <issue>6</issue>
          <fpage>578</fpage>
          <lpage>583</lpage>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.gerinurse.2017.04.007</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="medline">28552204</pub-id>
          <pub-id pub-id-type="pii">S0197-4572(17)30113-1</pub-id>
        </nlm-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>
