This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Pilot studies (ehealth) (210) E-Health / Health Services Research and New Models of Care (530) Adoption and Change Management of eHealth Systems (724) mHealth in a Clinical Setting (619) Clinical Communication, Electronic Consultation and Telehealth (607) Health Services Research (487)

Published on in Vol 8 (2024)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/52921, first published .
Successful Electronic Consultation Service Initiative in Quebec, Canada With Primary Care Physicians’ and Specialists’ Experiences on Acceptance and Use of Technological Innovation: Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study

Successful Electronic Consultation Service Initiative in Quebec, Canada With Primary Care Physicians’ and Specialists’ Experiences on Acceptance and Use of Technological Innovation: Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study

Successful Electronic Consultation Service Initiative in Quebec, Canada With Primary Care Physicians’ and Specialists’ Experiences on Acceptance and Use of Technological Innovation: Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study

Authors of this article:

Véronique Nabelsi1 Author Orcid Image ;   Annabelle Lévesque-Chouinard2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations (2) Metrics

    Original Paper

    1Department of Administrative Sciences, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Gatineau, QC, Canada

    2GMF-U de la Haute-Ville du Centre intégré universitaire de santé et des services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, Sainte-Foy, QC, Canada

    Corresponding Author:

    Véronique Nabelsi, BSc, MScA, PhD

    Department of Administrative Sciences

    Université du Québec en Outaouais

    C.P. 1240, Succ. Hull

    Gatineau, QC, J8X 3X7

    Canada

    Phone: 1 819 595 3900 ext 1915

    Email: veronique.nabelsi@uqo.ca


    Background: Electronic consultation (eConsult) is an eHealth service that allows primary care providers (PCPs) to electronically consult specialists regarding their patients’ medical issues. Many studies have demonstrated that eConsult services improve timely access to specialist care; prevent unnecessary referrals; improve PCPs’, specialists’, and patients’ satisfaction; and therefore have a large impact on costs. However, no studies have evaluated PCPs’ and specialists’ acceptance of eConsult services in Quebec, Canada, and worldwide.

    Objective: This exploratory study aims to identify factors affecting eConsult service acceptance by PCPs and specialists in urban and rural primary care clinics across 3 regions in the province of Quebec, Canada, by integrating the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and Task-Technology Fit (TTF) models and user satisfaction. This research was designed to broaden and assist in scaling up this effective eHealth service innovation across the province.

    Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was sent to all PCPs (n=263) and specialists (n=62) who used the eConsult Quebec Service between July 2017 and May 2021. We proposed a unified model integrating the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model and TTF model and user satisfaction by endorsing 11 hypotheses. The partial least squares was used to investigate factors influencing the acceptance of the eConsult Quebec Service.

    Results: Of the 325 end users, 136 (41.8%) users responded (PCPs: 101/263, 38.4%; specialists: 35/62, 57%). The results of the analysis with partial least squares method indicate that 9 of our 11 hypotheses are supported. The direct relationships uniting the various constructs of the model highlighted the importance of several key constructs and predominant correlations. The results suggest that satisfaction is the key driver behind the use of the eConsult Quebec Service. Performance expectancy (P<.001) and effort expectancy (P=.03) can have a positive impact on behavioral intention (BI), and BI (P<.001) can impact adoption. TTF has an influence on performance expectancy (P<.001), adoption (P=.02), and satisfaction (P<.001). However, the results show that there is no direct effect between social influence (P=.38) and BI or between facilitating conditions (P=.17) and adoption.

    Conclusions: This study provides a better understanding of the factors influencing PCPs’ and specialists’ intention to adopt the eConsult Quebec Service. Furthermore, this study tests a research model and a technology that have never been explored in Quebec until now. On the basis of the results, the service is a good fit to meet the users’ need to improve access to specialized medical advice. Therefore, the results of our study have made a valuable contribution to the implementation of the service by policy makers in order to maximize acceptance, use, adoption, and success across the province of Quebec. Moreover, after 4 successful years, the eConsult Quebec pilot project is now the Conseil Numérique digital consultation service.

    JMIR Form Res 2024;8:e52921

    doi:10.2196/52921

    Keywords

    eConsult; electronic consultation; digital health solutions; primary care providers; specialists; United Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology; UTAUT; Task-Technology Fit; TTF; technology acceptance 


    Background

    Access to specialized services remains a significant issue in Quebec, Canada. The Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services’ (MSSS) 2019 to 2023 strategic plan identified the improvement of access to specialized services, specifically consultations with a medical specialist, as one of the major objectives on which to focus over the next few years [1]. Health care systems face constant pressure to control health care costs while improving access and providing patients with safe, high-quality care. Developing a more efficient and cost-effective health care system is essential to providing better services and a better patient care experience. As part of the 2017 to 2027 Quebec Life Sciences Strategy, the province increased its investment in health research and innovation in order to accelerate the adoption of new and innovative practices [2]. In line with the government’s digital transformation strategy, the MSSS has already begun this transformation within the health and social services network by implementing digital services that will facilitate access to health care and enable rapid and efficient management of patients’ health.

    eConsult Services Worldwide

    Today, technological advances and the integration of new practices in the health sector offer interesting possibilities to solve the problem of excessive wait times and equitable access to specialists through digital health solutions [3-7]. Digital health solutions can help overcome barriers to health care access and patient care management. This is especially true for patients living in rural or remote areas who often experience inequitable access to services compared with those living in urban areas [8-13].

    Traditionally, patients have in-person consultations with their physicians. Web-based is an alternative method that can be used to improve access and better use specialized resources [14]. Electronic consultation (eConsult) provides an effective and efficient alternative method of assessing a clinical situation without having the patient meet with the specialist in person [3,15-18]. eConsult services are delivered through secure web-based applications that facilitate asynchronous communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists, allowing a PCP to submit a clinical question to a specialist and to get an answer within a week [16,19-21]. The specialist responds with advice on the treatment plan or referral recommendations or a request for additional information about the case. The PCP and specialist continue to communicate until the case is resolved.

    eConsult services are spreading rapidly around the world [22] and seeing a significant increase in adoption as a result of the COVID-19 crisis [23-30]. A large body of published academic research has focused on assessing the relevance, usefulness, and impact of eConsult services to reduce wait times for specialist care. Most of the studies were limited to services offering access to a single specialty, such as dermatology [31-34], chronic pain [35,36], obstetrics and gynecology [34,37,38], and others [39-45]. Other researchers have studied PCPs’ [46-48] and specialists’ [16,49-51] level of satisfaction with eConsult services [52]. Studies have also been conducted to examine patients’ care experience, specifically, with regard to access, efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction [53-56]. Many studies reported on the impact of the eConsult Service after its implementation, emphasizing growth and sustainability [12,49,50,57-61]. Collected data include the number of web-based consultations submitted by a PCP, the specialties that were consulted, specialist response time, and case outcome. A number of recent studies have evaluated the educational value of the eConsult Service for PCPs [62-65]. Other works also focused on the costs of eConsult services [13,66-68]. A few studies explored the facilitators of and barriers to implementation and adoption of the eConsult Service [23,47,69-72], while other studies focused on the strategies used to disseminate, support, and facilitate efforts to scale up a proven innovation, namely, the eConsult Service, which has improved access to specialized services in primary care settings [73-76].

    It is a well-established fact in health-related IT literature that certain factors can influence physicians’ perception of the use of technology such as telemedicine [77-79], electronic medical records [80-83], clinical decision support systems [84-86], and mobile health apps [87-91]. Behavioral acceptance model and technology acceptance model (TAM) are often used to explain user behavior [92-95]. However, no study has ever been conducted on the perceptions and experiences of PCPs and specialists regarding the factors influencing the adoption, acceptance, and use of eConsult services. Research studies are needed to address this gap by exploring the factors influencing the acceptance of eConsult services among health care professionals, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of technology implementation in health care settings.

    The aim of this exploratory study was to fill this gap, integrating variables from 2 models, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and Task-Technology Fit (TTF), as well as user satisfaction, to explain user behavior regarding the adoption of the eConsult Quebec Service.

    Research Model and Hypotheses

    With the development of IT, many theories and models of the acceptance and use of new technology have been developed or used in order to better understand the factors that influence the acceptance and use of technology [96-101]. Several health sector studies are based mainly on the TAM [93,102-109]. Other works have enhanced the TAM model by creating integrative models that combine the TAM with other explanatory models of user behavior [95,98,110-115]. In view of the multiplicity of existing models on the acceptance and use of technology, Venkatesh et al [100] proposed a unified explanatory model of user behavior, which is the basis of the UTAUT, integrating variables drawn from 8 models (including Theory of Reasoned Action and TAM) [116].

    The UTAUT model is considered to be one of the most effective [117] models, and it has been tested and empirically validated in several fields and in different contexts such as health care in order to study the determining factors in acceptance and use of a technological innovation. Moreover, the UTAUT model can explain up to 70% and 50% of the variance in intention to use technology and actual use of the technology, respectively, representing a high predictive power [100,101,104].

    At the same time, fit is an important notion in IT. It is defined by Goodhue and Thompson [118] as “the degree to which a technology assists an individual in performing his or her portfolio of tasks.” TTF is another theoretical model that has been studied to explain how a new technology leads to performance, to evaluate the impact of adoption, and to assess the relationship between task characteristics (TAC) and technology characteristics (TEC). TTF seeks to assess whether the technology’s functionality is well aligned, that is, compatible with the work done by end users. Studies have shown that technology will be more readily accepted and will have a positive impact on individual performance if the technological characteristics match expected tasks [119-126].

    As the TTF model given by Goodhue and Thompson [118] assesses the fit between the task and the technology, it appeared highly relevant to combine the TTF and the UTAUT models because they have the potential to further explain PCPs’ and specialists’ acceptance of the eConsult Quebec Service. In addition, certain studies integrated UTAUT and TTF to understand and predict end user behavior and intention regarding the acceptance and adoption of a new health-related technology [127-133].

    Some studies focused on explaining user behavior based on other individual variables such as satisfaction. Resistance to the implementation of new IT can have a negative impact on user satisfaction [134,135]. Resistance may be caused by the perceived risk of performance loss and dissatisfaction following the use of the new IT [136]. The user of an IT seeks to improve their performance by improving the way they work, perform their tasks, and achieve their objectives [118,122,137]. Other studies in the field of health have focused on the application of the TTF model based on end user satisfaction [126,138].

    The models’ diversity reflects the existence of several factors influencing IT use behavior, which is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. Consequently, our study integrated and adapted the UTAUT and TTF models and end user satisfaction with the eConsult Quebec Service.

    The integrated research framework is presented in Figure 1, and the 11 hypotheses are listed in Textbox 1.

    The proposed integrated model includes 10 constructs that have been refined and adapted to the context of the study. The relationships between the variables were hypothesized by referring to previous studies [100,116,118,127-133,138].

    ‎
    Figure 1. The proposed research model based on Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and task-technology fit (TTF) and user satisfaction. ATT: adoption; BI: behavioral intention; EE: effort expectancy; FC: facilitating condition; PE: performance expectancy; SAT: satisfaction; SI: social influence; TAC: task characteristics; TEC: technology characteristics.
    Textbox 1. Hypotheses list.

    Label and hypotheses

    • 1
      • Task characteristics have a positive impact on Task-Technology Fit (TTF).
    • 2
      • Technology characteristics have a positive impact on TTF.
    • 3a
      • TTF has a positive impact on performance expectancy (PE).
    • 3b
      • TTF has a positive impact on adoption (ATT) of the eConsult Quebec Service.
    • 3c
      • TTF has a positive impact on satisfaction (SAT).
    • 4
      • PE has a positive impact on SAT.
    • 5a
      • PE has a positive impact on behavioral intention (BI) to use eConsult Quebec Service.
    • 5b
      • Effort expectancy has a positive impact on BI to use of the eConsult Quebec Service.
    • 5c
      • Social influence has a positive impact on BI to use of the eConsult Quebec Service.
    • 6
      • Facilitating conditions has a positive impact on ATT of the eConsult Quebec Service.
    • 7
      • BI to use eConsult Quebec Service has a positive impact on ATT of the eConsult Quebec Service.

    Development of the eConsult Quebec Service

    In Ontario, Canada, the Champlain eConsult Building Access to Specialists through eConsultation (BASE) service was initially launched in 2009 to address the issue of long wait times for patients requiring nonurgent care and specialist advice [14,16,139]. The service has demonstrated significant success in reducing wait times, improving access to specialist care, and enhancing patient and provider satisfaction. Given its success in Ontario and in other parts of Canada, the eConsult Quebec Service was based on the Champlain BASE business model and was replicated on an existing telehealth platform within the Quebec health network [3].

    Simultaneously, the Quebec team was part of the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement Connected Medicine collaborative, in partnership with Canada Health Infoway, the College of Family Physicians of Canada, and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada over a period of 18 months from 2017 to 2018 in 7 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Labrador) to roll out remote consultation services to improve access to specialist medical advice in primary care settings [140].

    Design of the eConsult Quebec Service

    The eConsult Quebec Service was adapted to the platform as an additional trajectory among other similar digital consulting trajectories already in operation since 2006. This made it possible to comply with Quebec’s context and security requirements and to offer a simplified user experience, especially for users who were already active on a telehealth platform and did not need to adapt to an additional tool. The new trajectory was integrated into the PCPs’ and specialists’ existing clinical workflow.

    Similar to the Champlain BASE eConsult service, eConsult Quebec functions as a platform facilitating communication between PCPs and specialists. This secure web-based application enables PCPs to submit inquiries to specialists, seeking guidance on the best management plan for their patients.

    The platform begins with a PCP submitting a clinical question via a standardized, secure web form (Figure 2). This form is intentionally kept simple and focused to ensure ease of use and favorable user adoption. A centralized coordinator manages all PCPs requests, efficiently dispatching them to specialists of the appropriate specialty. This streamlines the process and ensures timely responses. Upon receiving an email notification, the specialist has a 7-day window to respond to the request and is remunerated at a rate of CAD $200 (US $146.8) per hour, prorated based on their self-reported time needed to address the eConsult.

    ‎
    Figure 2. Creation of a new electronic consultation (eConsult) and submission of a clinical question to the specialist.

    Furthermore, the platform facilitates clear communication between PCPs and specialists through email prompts and allows for ongoing correspondence until the PCP closes the request. This ensures that all parties involved are kept informed throughout the consultation process. In addition, the patient data are encrypted and accessible only to the physicians involved in the eConsult or their delegated staff through role-based access control. This ensures the confidentiality and security of patient information.

    The platform features a user-friendly dashboard interface that consolidates all requests across various communication types, including eConsults, patient forms and messages, teleconsultations, and transfer requests (Figure 3). The view filters and possible actions on the dashboard are dynamically adapted according to user roles and permissions. This ensures that users only see relevant information and functionalities based on their level of access. Users have the option to choose between card view or table view. The main status filters include Active (for pending actions), Waiting (for requests awaiting response), Completed (for finished actions), and Archived (optional storage for completed items).

    This adaptation ensured alignment with Quebec’s context and security standards while providing a streamlined user experience, particularly for those already familiar with the telehealth platform. By integrating this new trajectory into the existing clinical workflows of PCPs and specialists, the service facilitated seamless engagement without the need for additional tool adaptation. It is important to note that there are variations in the design of the eConsult service because Quebec is different from other jurisdictions in Canada on a number of fronts, including policy and regulations (eg, licensing, privacy, and liability); financing (eg, provider remuneration); and, of course, language, where French is the national language as opposed to English elsewhere [3].

    ‎
    Figure 3. The interface of the primary care providers’ dashboard.

    Study Design and Setting

    Given our objective, we adopted a cross-sectional data collection approach. Kumar [141] explains that cross-sectional design is adequate to study the prevalence, or the occurrence, of a phenomenon, situation, or attitude within a subset of a given population at a certain point in time. In light of this, the study of users’ perceptions, attitudes, and continuance intention with regard to technological innovations lends itself to a cross-sectional study approach.

    We conducted a survey-based multicenter cross-sectional study across 3 regions in the province of Quebec (Outaouais, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec) as part of the eConsult Quebec pilot project. The web-based survey was sent to all participants (N=325), PCPs (n=263, 80.9%) and specialists (n=62, 19.1%) who used the service between July 7, 2017, and May 17, 2021, in order to assess acceptance and use of the service.

    Instrument

    To ensure measurement validity, all items of each model variable were developed based on the UTAUT, TTF, and end user satisfaction. Variables were measured using reliable items that had already been used by previous studies [100,116,118,127-133,138]; we adapted certain items to our study context. The first version of the survey was translated from English into French by a group of researchers and validated by a professional translator to ensure that the content had not lost any of its original meaning. The second and final version of the survey was validated with 4 PCPs and 2 specialists who had already used the eConsult Quebec Service. They were asked to identify any issues that might lead to confusion.

    The survey was administered in French to all users of the eConsult Quebec Service. The survey comprised 2 parts. The first part consisted of demographic information (area of origin, profession, and specialty group [for specialists]). The second part included 10 constructs and 38 items, including TAC, TEC, TTF, performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), social influence (SI), facilitating conditions (FCs), behavioral intention (BI), adoption, and satisfaction, to measure PCPs’ and specialists’ perception regarding the use of the eConsult Quebec Service. All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=somewhat disagree, 3=neutral, 4=somewhat agree, 5=strongly agree). Table 1 presents the items of each construct.

    Table 1. Items used in the research model.
    Construct and itemMeasurement
    TACa

    		JFb1Using the eConsult Service impacts my work performance.

    		JF2Using the eConsult Service can significantly improve the quality of the results of my work.

    		JF3Using the eConsult Service can improve my level of efficiency in the performance of my tasks.
    TECc

    		FMTd1The way elements are arranged on the eConsult Service screen makes it easy to read the information.

    		FMT2The information in the eConsult Service is clear.

    		FMT3Overall, the information is presented in a useful format.

    		SECe1The risk of an unauthorized third party accessing the eConsult Service is low.

    		SEC2I believe that only the appropriate people have access to information.

    		SEC3I believe that the eConsult Service is secure enough to handle sensitive information.
    TTFf

    		ACCg1The patient information received through the eConsult Service is accurate.

    		ACC2I am satisfied with the accuracy of the information in the eConsult Service.

    		ACC3Overall, I believe the information provided is free of errors.
    PEh

    		PUi1Using the eConsult Service helps me make clinical decisions or offer advice faster.

    		PU2I believe that using the eConsult Service enables me to make safer decisions or offer safer advice.

    		PU3I believe that using the eConsult service enables me to make more accurate clinical decisions or offer more accurate advice.

    		PU4Using the eConsult Service makes my job easier.

    		PU5Overall, I find the eConsult Service to be useful in supporting my clinical decision-making or when offering advice.
    EEj

    		PEOUk1Learning to use the eConsult Service is easy for me.

    		PEOU2My interactions with the eConsult Service are clear and understandable.

    		PEOU3I think that the eConsult Service meets my needs.

    		PEOU4Overall, I find the eConsult Service easy to use.
    SIl

    		SFm1I use the eConsult Service because most of my colleagues use it.

    		SF2My organization facilitated the use of the eConsult Service.

    		SF3My association supports my use of the eConsult Service.

    		SF4The organization generally supported my use of the eConsult Service.
    FCn

    		FC1I have the knowledge required to use the eConsult Service.

    		FC2My organization supports the use of the eConsult Service.

    		FC3I have the necessary resources to use the eConsult Service.
    BIo

    		BI1I will continue to use the eConsult Service.

    		BI2I plan to use the eConsult Service frequently.

    		BI3Overall, I think using the eConsult Service is beneficial.

    		BI4I would recommend the eConsult Service to my colleagues.
    ATTp

    		ATT1Using the eConsult Service is a smart idea.

    		ATT2Using the eConsult Service is a safe experience.

    		ATT3I am in favor of using the eConsult Service.
    SATq

    		SAT1Using the eConsult Service meets my needs.

    		SAT2I am happy with my use of the eConsult Service.

    		SAT3I am extremely satisfied with my use of the eConsult Service.

    aTAC: task characteristics.

    bJF: job fit.

    cTEC: technology characteristics.

    dFMT: format.

    eSEC: security.

    fTTF: Task-Technology Fit.

    gACC: accuracy.

    hPE: performance expectancy.

    iPU: perceived usefulness.

    jEE: effort expectancy.

    kPEOU: perceived ease of use.

    lSI: social influence.

    mSF: social factors.

    nFC: facilitating condition.

    oBI: behavioral intention.

    pATT: adoption.

    qSAT: satisfaction.

    Data Collection

    The survey was developed using web-based survey software Survey Monkey (SurveyMonkey Inc). The survey was distributed to all users on May 19, 2021, as an electronic letter through the eConsult Quebec Service electronic mailbox system. The letter included the context, study objective, guarantee of confidentiality, duration, and the link to access the web-based survey. A reminder letter was sent via the electronic mailbox system 1 month after the initial invitation to maximize the response rate.

    Participants

    In the end, of the 325 end users, 136 respondents from the 3 regions of Quebec took part in the survey, representing a response rate of 41.8% from both PCPs (101/263, 38.4%) and specialists (35/62, 57%).

    Data Analysis

    Several authors argue that the partial least squares (PLS) method is appropriate for exploratory projects and data in various fields [142-146] as well as for the formative measurement of variables that require the operationalization and conceptualization of various concepts [147] in order to “predict and explain a key target construct and to identify its relevant antecedent constructs. In other words, this approach generates latent variable scores that maximize within-sample prediction in terms of the dependent latent variable’s R2 value. As such, the estimated coefficients depict the relevance of constructs in a certain model that directly, indirectly and totally contribute to the explanation of a target construct of interest” (Chin et al [148]).

    In addition, PLS is appropriate to evaluate relatively new measurement models. Thus, PLS is a promising method for research projects related to information systems and emerging technologies [145], as is the case here. Moreover, this method is especially useful for smaller samples [143] where it may be more difficult to obtain a large number of respondents and where “the goal is to predict and explain the key target constructs or identify the key driver constructs” [149]. This data analysis method is commonly used in research projects based on the UTAUT [150], as well as in studies that combine UTAUT and TTF due to the complexity of the model with several constructs [132,151]. For this reason, this study used PLS to examine the research model and test the 11 hypotheses. Data were analyzed using SmartPLS 4.0 software.

    First, as per recommendations from Bagozzi and Phillips [152] and Venkatraman and Grant [153] concerning the preliminary verification of constructs, an evaluation of their validity and reliability was established. Then, the measurement model was evaluated by examining reliability, internal consistency, and convergent validity of measurements. For exploratory research, a Cronbach α coefficient of 0.50 is considered an acceptable value [154-156]. As for the composite reliability index, it must be ≥0.70 [157]. Although Hair et al [155] recommend a factor loading >0.50 to be considered significant, a factor loading >0.40 in the exploratory phase was considered to be a significant contribution [158]. During the reliability test, 2 items (SEC1: “The risk of an unauthorized third party accessing the eConsult Service is low” and SF1: “I use the eConsult Service because the majority of my colleagues use it”) were removed from our research model for data analysis. The validity of constructs was verified using the average variance extracted index, the value of which must be ≥0.50 [159].

    Finally, the structural model was evaluated by coefficients of determination (R2) as well as path coefficients (β) and their significance by running 5000 bootstrap subsamples. Finally, the research hypotheses must be statistically proven with a t value of >1.96 and a P value of <.05.

    Ethical Considerations

    Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Outaouais Integrated Health and Social Services Centre before the beginning of the study (ref. number 2016-183_88), in Quebec, Canada.

    All participants gave their consent electronically before beginning the survey. Participation was anonymous and voluntary.


    Measurement Model Evaluation

    As shown in Table 2, for our research model, all factor loading values for all items are >0.40 (0.413-0.931), all Cronbach α values are >0.50 (0.591-0.891), composite reliability values exceed 0.70 (0.783-0.928), and all average variance extracted values are >0.50 (0.550-0.812). These results indicate good reliability and validity of the constructs.

    Table 2. The measurement model evaluation.
    Construct and itemLoadings (>0.40)Cronbach α (>0.50)Composite reliability (>0.70)Average variance extracted (>0.50)
    TACa0.6590.8060.604

    		JFb10.413



    		JF20.913



    		JF30.898


    TECc0.7900.8530.548

    		FMTd10.822



    		FMT20.843



    		FMT30.884



    		SECe20.563



    		SEC30.507


    TTFf0.8370.9030.758

    		ACCg10.904



    		ACC20.913



    		ACC30.789


    PEh0.8910.9200.696

    		PUi10.837



    		PU20.838



    		PU30.818



    		PU40.789



    		PU50.886


    EEj0.8860.9200.741

    		PEOUk10.861



    		PEOU20.811



    		PEOU30.872



    		PEOU40.896


    SIl0.7420.8530.660

    		SFm20.764



    		SF30.799



    		SF40.871


    FCn0.5910.7830.550

    		FC10.695



    		FC20.657



    		FC30.856


    BIo0.8690.9110.720

    		BI10.850



    		BI20.750



    		BI30.868



    		BI40.917


    ATTp0.7280.8440.644

    		ATT10.764



    		ATT20.775



    		ATT30.866


    SATq0.8830.9280.812

    		SAT10.849



    		SAT20.931



    		SAT30.920


    aTAC: task characteristics.

    bJF: job fit.

    cTEC: technology characteristics.

    dFMT: format.

    eSEC: security.

    fTTF: Task-Technology Fit.

    gACC: accuracy.

    hPE: performance expectancy.

    iPU: perceived usefulness.

    jEE: effort expectancy.

    kPEOU: perceived ease of use.

    lSI: social influence.

    mSF: social factors.

    nFC: facilitating condition.

    oBI: behavioral intention.

    pATT: adoption.

    qSAT: satisfaction.

    Hypothesis Testing

    As mentioned, to test our hypotheses, we used the PLS method because it is widely used to test complex causal models, incorporating several latent variables. Sample size constraints are also more flexible, and measurement scales do not require broad approval. Thus, the PLS method is well suited to exploratory analyses. In our structural equation model, path coefficients (β), t values, and P values are examined in order to distinguish the relationships between the constructs of our research model. In addition, we examined the variance in the dependent variables explained by the independent variables to evaluate the explanatory and predictive power of the structural model (R2) [160]. According to Falk and Miller [161], the coefficient of determination (R2) should be >0.10.

    The results of the hypothesis tests on our model integrating the UTAUT, TTF, and user satisfaction with the eConsult Quebec Service are summarized in Table 3 and depicted in Figure 4.

    On the basis of Table 3, the statistical result of each path in the research model indicated that most of the hypotheses were supported, except hypothesis 5c effect of SI on BI to use and hypothesis 6 effect of FCs on adoption of the eConsult Quebec Service because the P value was >.05 and the t value was <1.96.

    Both TAC and TEC were found to positively influence TTF, supporting hypothesis 1 (t value=2.243; P=.03) and hypothesis 2 (t value=6.119; P<.001). The calculated R2 values (Figure 2) showed that 36.5% of the variance in TTF was explained by TEC and TAC, with TEC having the strongest influence (t value=6.119; P<.001). Meanwhile, TTF directly affects adoption, PE, and satisfaction. Thus, hypotheses 3a (t value=3.823; P<.001), 3b (t value=2.415; P=.02), and 3c (t value=5.604; P<.001) were supported. PE has a positive impact on satisfaction, supporting hypothesis 4 (t value=4.259; P<.001). In addition, TTF and PE explain 52.7% of the variance in satisfaction. Moreover, PE and EE have a direct effect on BI. Thus, hypotheses 5a (t value=4.247; P<.001) and 5b (t value=2.234; P=.03) were supported. The 2 variables explain 45.5% of the variance in BI. Finally, BI significantly influences adoption, supporting hypothesis 7 (t value=4.861; P<.001) and explaining 50% of the variance in adoption. In this model, all the R² values of the endogenous variables indicate an acceptable level, respecting the lower limit of 0.10 (TTF, R2=0.365; PE, R2=0.134; BI, R2=0.455; adoption, R2=0.500; satisfaction, R2=0.527). Overall, 9 of 11 hypotheses were supported in the research model.

    Table 3. Hypothesis analysis results.
    HypothesisPathβ coefficientt valueP valueResults
    1TACa→TTFb0.2102.243.03Supported
    2TECc→TTF0.4956.119<.001Supported
    3aTTF→PEd0.3663.823<.001Supported
    3bTTF→ATTe0.2342.415.02Supported
    3cTTF→SATf0.4985.604<.001Supported
    4PE→SAT0.3764.259<.001Supported
    5aPE→BIg0.4744.247<.001Supported
    5bEEh→BI0.2572.234.03Supported
    5cSIi→BI0.0640.871.38Not supported
    6FCj→ATT0.1141.368.17Not supported
    7BI→ATT0.5414.861<.001Supported

    aTAC: task characteristics.

    bTTF: Task-Technology Fit.

    cTEC: technology characteristics.

    dPE: performance expectancy.

    eATT: adoption.

    fSAT: satisfaction.

    gBI: behavioral intention.

    hEE: effort expectancy.

    iSI: social influence.

    jFC: facilitating condition.

    ‎
    Figure 4. Partial least squares results and R2 values (n=136). ATT: adoption; BI: behavioral intention; EE: effort expectancy; FC: facilitating condition; PE: performance expectancy; SAT: satisfaction; SI: social influence; TAC: task characteristics; TEC: technology characteristics; TTF: task-technology fit; UTAUT: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology.

    Principal Findings

    Theoretical Support

    To our knowledge, this study is the first to validate both models, namely, UTAUT and TTF, along with user satisfaction to explain user behavior regarding the adoption of the eConsult Quebec Service. The aim of our exploratory study was to identify the factors that predict the acceptance of the service by PCPs and specialists in urban and rural primary care clinics across 3 regions in Quebec, Canada. The results of the PLS analyses indicate that 9 of the study’s 11 hypotheses are supported. To explain the adoption of the service by PCPs and specialists, the direct relationships uniting the various constructs of the model highlighted the importance of several key constructs and predominant correlations, thus confirming most research hypotheses. The research model’s variables influencing each endogenous variable explain 36.5% of the variance in TTF, 13.4% of the variance in PE, 45.5% of the variance in BI, 50% of the variance in adoption, and 52.7% of the variance in satisfaction with regard to the adoption of the eConsult Quebec Service.

    First, the results suggest that satisfaction has a solid foundation as a key driver behind the use of the eConsult Quebec Service (R2=0.527). A few studies in the field of health care technology acceptance have highlighted the pivotal role of satisfaction in predicting individuals’ willingness to adopt technology [95,162,163]. From the perspective of the Information Systems Success Model, individuals’ level of satisfaction can significantly influence the acceptance and use of a particular system [95,117,164-166]. Another study has demonstrated that user satisfaction is the strongest predictor of perceived benefits and technology continuance use intention [163,166,167]. Our model shows that this construct is powered by 2 other constructs that explain 52.7% of the variance: TTF and PE. Studies have shown that PE has a significant impact on satisfaction [168]. According to Bhattacherjee [113], when user expectations are confirmed, they will be satisfied. Thus, PE will affect user satisfaction with a system. Individual productivity is defined as a respondent’s belief in their effectiveness and efficiency and in the quality of their work [122,169]. A user’s perceived feeling of performance in making more accurate and safer clinical decisions or offering more accurate and safer advice (perceived usefulness [PU]; PU2: “I believe that using the eConsult Service enables me to make safer decisions or offer safer advice” and PU3: “I believe that using the eConsult service enables me to make more accurate clinical decisions or offer more accurate advice”) can influence the adoption of the eConsult Quebec Service, how they use it, and the level of satisfaction resulting from their experience with the service. People are happier and more productive when the technology they are using is adapted to their daily tasks. Thus, the better the technology meets the PCPs’ and specialists’ information-related needs when making clinical decisions related to the health of their patients, the more satisfied they are. This correlation shows that the role of TTF affects end user satisfaction. The results suggest that with high levels of TTF and PE, PCPs and specialists experience higher levels of satisfaction.

    The results indicate that TAC and TEC explain 36.5% of the variance in TTF for the eConsult Quebec Service. This suggests that both the nature of the tasks being performed and the features and capabilities of the technology platform play crucial roles in determining the overall TTF. Notably, TEC emerged as the factor with the most direct and significant influence on users, as indicated by hypothesis 2 (P<.001). This underscores the importance of the eConsult platform’s functionality, user-friendliness, and features in facilitating effective communication and collaboration between PCPs and specialists. In contrast, TAC has a less significant influence, as indicated by hypothesis 1 (P=.03). While the nature of the tasks being performed is still important, it suggests that the technology’s capabilities and features are more influential in determining the overall fit and user satisfaction with the eConsult Quebec Service.

    With regard to the UTAUT model, PE, EE, and SI explain 45.5% of the variance in BI. BI is the third positive and significant predictor of eConsult Quebec Service use. The most significant direct correlation is between PE (hypothesis 5a; P<.001) and the intention to use the technology. The most widely studied relationship in the field of health is that between PE and the intention to use a technology [104,170-178]. Thus, when clinicians’ PE was achieved, it positively influenced their intention to use the system. On the basis of our empirical observations, in the context of voluntary adoption, the correlation between PE and the intention to use the technology is the strongest. The second most frequently measured correlation concerns the impact of EE on the intention to use the system, which has proven to be positively significant in several studies [109,171-174,177,179-182]. In this study, the correlation is weaker but remains positive and significant (hypothesis 5b; P=.03). In other words, when considered alone, the user-friendliness of a technology does not totally influence the intention to use a technology, rather the technology must also be perceived as useful. On the basis of our field data, we expected to see a weaker correlation between EE and BI to use the eConsult Quebec Service than between PE and BI to use the service. Regarding the role of SI in relation to intention to use the system, the reviewed studies tested a positive correlation between these 2 constructs [183]. Note that SI has no direct effect on this factor (hypothesis 5c) in our study. As a first line of thought, it is possible that physicians as self-employed workers within the public health system in Quebec are less sensitive to social pressure when using technology. As a second explanation, it is possible that this finding reflects the voluntary context of the adoption and use of the eConsult Quebec Service by PCPs and specialists. As a third explanation, it is possible that health care professionals may rely more on their individual judgments and preferences rather than being influenced by social factors. In certain contexts, the influence of peers or colleagues on decision-making may be limited.

    Adoption is the second predictor of the use of the eConsult Quebec Service. Our model demonstrates that this construct is powered by 3 other constructs that explain 50% of the variance: BI, FCs, and TTF. The most significant direct correlation is BI (hypothesis 7; P<.001). Some studies have noted that a person’s emerging intention represents a critical point during the adoption of a technology, which may be considered as the moment when the decision is made to accept the change and modify their behavior [104,170,172,184]. Thus, attitude toward technology lies in the intention to use the technology. The second direct but weaker correlation is TTF (hypothesis 3b; P=.02). Several studies have confirmed the importance of TTF in the adoption of a new technology [119-121,127,185]. Generally, the compatibility of IT with the preferred work style and current work practices would influence the adoption of the IT [130]. As for the last construct, FCs have no effect on the adoption of a system (H6: β coefficient=0.114). Therefore, this result suggests that PCPs and specialists are comfortable with the technology, have confident in the availability of support measures to assist them in case of issues, and feel adequately informed and competent when adopting the eConsult Quebec Service.

    User Adoption

    This construct is defined as the user’s perception of the factors in the work environment that promote the adoption and use of the service, namely, with regard to the available support, coaching, and training provided. This means that all the barriers hindering the adoption of a technology were eliminated by the team during the roll out of the eConsult Quebec Service. Initially, the pilot project was launched in the Outaouais region with 1 clinic; other clinics were added during the deployment phase in this region. This approach made it possible to control recruitment, and, above all, it facilitated PCPs’ and specialists’ ownership of the use of the service as well as enable the validation of monitoring mechanisms. Subsequently, the project was rolled out in several clinics simultaneously in 2 other regions (Mauricie-et-Centre-du-Québec and Abitibi-Témiscamingue).

    The operation of the service is very simple and user-friendly [3]. More precisely, the platform begins with a PCP submitting a clinical question via a standardized, secure web form. This form is intentionally kept simple and focused to ensure ease of use and favorable user adoption. A centralized coordinator manages all PCPs requests, efficiently dispatching them to specialists of the appropriate specialty. This streamlines the process and ensures timely responses. Also, the platform facilitates clear communication between PCPs and specialists through email prompts and allows for ongoing correspondence until the PCP closes the request. This ensures that all parties involved are kept informed throughout the consultation process. In addition, the patient data are encrypted and accessible only to the physicians involved in the eConsult or their delegated staff through role-based access control. This ensures the confidentiality and security of patient information.

    The platform features a user-friendly dashboard interface that consolidates all requests across various communication types, including eConsults, patient forms and messages, teleconsultations, and transfer requests. The view filters and possible actions on the dashboard are dynamically adapted according to user roles and permissions. This ensures that users only see relevant information and functionalities based on their level of access.

    Given the user-friendliness of the platform and available tools (video, PowerPoint presentation, and test platform), no specific training is required. Users contact the resources responsible for the project in their region as needed. Therefore, the system itself requires little user support. As part of the pilot project, the team made sure that users could operate with maximum autonomy. Thus, PCPs and specialists were comfortable using the eConsult Quebec Service.

    Integrating Theoretical Models

    The relationship between the TTF model and the UTAUT model is demonstrated by the influence of TTF on PE. Indeed, TTF has a positive and significant effect on PE (hypothesis3a; P<.001), and TTF explains 13.4% of the variance in PE. This finding is similar to other studies [130,186]. Thus, the authors found that a technology can have a positive impact on performance when it is used and aligned with the supported task [118].

    In the context of this study, the higher the TTF level, the more PCPs and specialists perceived the eConsult Quebec Service as useful and conducive to making work easier. Thus, the technology’s fit to user requirements would directly influence their expectations. During the pilot project, integration of the eConsult Quebec Service into health care practices was identified by PCPs and specialists as an important issue likely to affect clinical practices, as well as the safety and the quality of care provided to patients. Studies carried out in health care settings clearly indicate that during its adoption, the compatibility of a technology influences PE [122,137,171,174,178,187-190].

    To this end, deployment of the service made it possible to optimize the consultation process following an eConsult and to provide the patient with optimal care management following an eConsult, and in most cases, the PCP’s action plan was improved. Overall, PCPs and specialists found the eConsult Quebec Service to be useful in supporting their clinical decision-making or when offering advice (PU5). Moreover, the correlation between the 2 models is presented by the influence of TTF on adoption. The greater the alignment between the technology and the task at hand, the more likely the user will be to adopt and use the technology. As mentioned, the results indicate that TTF contributes little to explaining the attitude toward actual use of the eConsult Quebec Service (hypothesis 3b; P=.02). Note that user perception can be affected by various factors, namely, the voluntary nature of adopting a technology. Also, as part of the pilot project, adopting the eConsult Quebec Service was not mandatory, so PCPs and specialists used it on a voluntary basis.

    Limitations and Future Research

    This study has some limitations that can be addressed in future studies. First, the results of this study may be difficult to generalize since the study was conducted in only 3 regions across Quebec. In addition, the Quebec MSSS selected these 3 regions for the pilot project with the aim of improving access to specialized medical advice. In future studies, it would be relevant to extend the scope to a larger population of PCPs and specialists from different regions in Quebec to increase the generalizability of the findings. This would help to confirm the model and its research variables relating to the use of the eConsult Quebec Service on a larger scale.

    Second, this study did not compare the user groups, that is, PCPs and specialists, because the objective was to study the applicability of the model integrating UTAUT and TTF and end user satisfaction with the eConsult Quebec Service. However, perception of the service may be different from one group to another.

    Third, this study did not delve into the demographic characteristics of the participants. It would be interesting to explore in future research whether the factors motivating the adoption of eConsult Quebec Service differ among different groups of health care professionals.

    Fourth, the research design used in this study was cross-sectional, capturing PCPs’ and specialists’ overall experience at a specific point in time. A longitudinal study would enhance the robustness of our findings by tracking experiences over an extended period. This longitudinal study would not only strengthen the validation of our research model but also allow for a deeper understanding of how perceptions and use of eConsult Quebec Service evolve over time.

    Fifth, this study did not find support either for the effect of SI on BI to use of the eConsult Quebec Service (hypothesis 5c) or for the effect of FCs on the adoption of the eConsult Quebec Service (hypothesis 6). In future research, it would be relevant to explore these 2 factors through interviews with PCPs and specialists in Quebec.

    Sixth, all the reliability and validity analyses demonstrated satisfactory results, with the exception of 2 items: one from the SI construct (social factors: SF1: “I use the eConsult Service because the majority of my colleagues use it”), and the other from the TEC construct (security: SEC1: “The risk of an unauthorized third party accessing the eConsult Service is low”), which were withdrawn due to low factor loading.

    Finally, this study did not investigate potential barriers to the adoption of eConsult Quebec Service. Thus, future studies should identify these barriers, as doing so could provide valuable insights for policy makers and health care administrators. By understanding the obstacles hindering adoption, effective strategies can be developed to address them.

    Conclusions

    This study has used an extended model that combines the UTAUT and TTF, along with user satisfaction, to delve into the factors influencing the intention of PCPs and specialists in 3 regions across Quebec to adopt the eConsult Quebec Service. In addition, this study has tested a research model and a technology that have not previously been explored in Quebec, Canada. Given that most of our research hypotheses were validated by the study’s outcomes, it can be asserted that our integrated research model is highly relevant to the study’s context. In this regard, the eConsult Quebec Service is well suited to the users’ need to improve access to specialized medical advice.

    By integrating well-established theoretical models such as the UTAUT and TTF, our study offers a comprehensive theoretical perspective to understand the factors influencing the acceptance of the eConsult Quebec Service. By grounding our analysis in these frameworks, we were able to identify and explore the factors shaping acceptance behavior among health care providers. This study has demonstrated the significance of certain factors that contribute heavily to actual use of the service. Indeed, our results indicate that TAC, TEC, TTF, PE, EE, BI, adoption, and satisfaction have an effect on users of the eConsult Quebec Service, whereas SI and FCs have no significant impact. Note that satisfaction is a significant predictor, essential to evaluating the acceptance of the eConsult Quebec Service. PE and EE can positively predict BI, and BI can impact adoption. In addition, TTF has an influence on PE, adoption, and satisfaction.

    Also, by focusing on PCPs and specialists in both urban and rural settings across different regions of Quebec, our study provides valuable insights into the specific factors influencing acceptance within this diverse health care landscape. This context-specific understanding is important for tailoring interventions to address the unique needs and challenges faced by health care providers in different settings.

    The main conclusion of this study emphasizes the significance of identifying the key factors influencing the adoption of the eConsult Quebec Service before scaling up the service. This has implications for improving patient access to specialist care, enhancing care coordination, and optimizing health care resource use. Our study findings directly have provided policy makers with valuable insights before the service’s implementation across Quebec, aiming to enhance its acceptance, use, adoption, and success. In fact, after 4 successful years, the eConsult Quebec pilot project is now the Conseil Numérique digital consultation service. This new service, launched in December 2021, has been rolled out across Quebec by the MSSS. The Conseil Numérique digital consultation service promotes swift communication between PCPs and specialists by providing timely access to specialist medical advice. Thus, it contributes to better case management by the PCP. So far, >30,000 cases have been processed following the scaling-up of the consultation service since December 2021. In >40% of eConsult cases, an in-person visit to the specialist was considered but deemed unnecessary following the eConsult. This reduced unnecessary wait times for patients and freed up specialist resources for patients who needed them most. When a patient needed a visit with a specialist, those visits were often more efficient and productive due to the steps or treatment initiated through the eConsult before the in-person visit.

    Acknowledgments

    This project was funded by the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement. This work was funded and supported by the Ministry for Health and Social Services in Quebec. The authors thank the Telehealth Coordination Centre of the McGill University Health Centre and Akinox for their cooperation throughout the course of this project.

    Authors' Contributions

    VN conceptualized and designed the study, collected the data, conducted the statistical analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Both the authors (VN and ALC) have read, revised, and approved the final manuscript.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    1. Publications du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux; plan stratégique du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux 2019-2023. Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux, Gouvernement du Québec. URL: https://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/msss/document-002438/ [accessed 2024-04-29]
    2. Stratégie québécoise des sciences de la vie 2017-2027 - L'innovation prend vie. Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux, Gouvernement du Québec. URL: https:/​/www.​msss.gouv.qc.ca/​professionnels/​documents/​bureau-innovation-sante-et-services-sociaux/​strategie-quebecoise-sciences-vie_2017-2027.​pdf [accessed 2024-04-29]
    3. Nabelsi V, Lévesque-Chouinard A, Liddy C, Dumas Pilon M. Improving the referral process, timeliness, effectiveness, and equity of access to specialist medical services through electronic consultation: pilot study. JMIR Med Inform. Jul 10, 2019;7(3):e13354. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Mold F, Hendy J, Lai Y, de Lusignan S. Electronic consultation in primary care between providers and patients: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform. Dec 03, 2019;7(4):e13042. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Liddy C, Moroz I, Mihan A, Nawar N, Keely E. A systematic review of asynchronous, provider-to-provider, electronic consultation services to improve access to specialty care available worldwide. Telemed J E Health. Mar 2019;25(3):184-198. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Payne T, Kevric J, Stelmach W, To H. The use of electronic consultations in outpatient surgery clinics: synthesized narrative review. JMIR Perioper Med. Apr 14, 2022;5(1):e34661. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Kurek AA, Boone-Sautter KM, Rizor M, Vermeesch K, Ahmed A. Implementation of e-consults in an integrated health system for a value population. Popul Health Manag. Oct 2023;26(5):303-308. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Bradford NK, Caffery LJ, Smith AC. Telehealth services in rural and remote Australia: a systematic review of models of care and factors influencing success and sustainability. Rural Remote Health. 2016;16(4):3808. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    9. Liddy C, McKellips F, Armstrong CD, Afkham A, Fraser-Roberts L, Keely E. Improving access to specialists in remote communities: a cross-sectional study and cost analysis of the use of eConsult in Nunavut. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2017;76(1):1323493. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Liddy C, Joschko J, Guglani S, Afkham A, Keely E. Improving equity of access through electronic consultation: a case study of an eConsult service. Front Public Health. 2019;7:279. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Jong M, Mendez I, Jong R. Enhancing access to care in northern rural communities via telehealth. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2019;78(2):1554174. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Helmer-Smith M, Fung C, Afkham A, Crowe L, Gazarin M, Keely E, et al. The feasibility of using electronic consultation in long-term care homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc. Aug 2020;21(8):1166-1170.e2. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Job J, Nicholson C, Donald M, Jackson C, Byrnes J. An eConsultant versus a hospital-based outpatient consultation for general (internal) medicine: a costing analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. May 11, 2023;23(1):478. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Keely E, Liddy C, Afkham A. Utilization, benefits, and impact of an e-consultation service across diverse specialties and primary care providers. Telemed J E Health. Oct 2013;19(10):733-738. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Stoves J, Connolly J, Cheung CK, Grange A, Rhodes P, O'Donoghue D, et al. Electronic consultation as an alternative to hospital referral for patients with chronic kidney disease: a novel application for networked electronic health records to improve the accessibility and efficiency of healthcare. Qual Saf Health Care. Oct 2010;19(5):e54. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Liddy C, Rowan MS, Afkham A, Maranger J, Keely E. Building access to specialist care through e-consultation. Open Med. 2013;7(1):e1-e8. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    17. Kim-Hwang JE, Chen AH, Bell DS, Guzman D, Yee HF, Kushel MB. Evaluating electronic referrals for specialty care at a public hospital. J Gen Intern Med. Oct 2010;25(10):1123-1128. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Vimalananda VG, Gupte G, Seraj SM, Orlander J, Berlowitz D, Fincke BG, et al. Electronic consultations (e-consults) to improve access to specialty care: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. J Telemed Telecare. Sep 2015;21(6):323-330. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Gleason N, Prasad PA, Ackerman S, Ho C, Monacelli J, Wang M, et al. Adoption and impact of an eConsult system in a fee-for-service setting. Healthc (Amst). Mar 2017;5(1-2):40-45. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Wrenn K, Catschegn S, Cruz M, Gleason N, Gonzales R. Analysis of an electronic consultation program at an academic medical centre: primary care provider questions, specialist responses, and primary care provider actions. J Telemed Telecare. Feb 2017;23(2):217-224. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Pecina JL, North F. Early e-consultation face-to-face conversions. J Telemed Telecare. Jul 2016;22(5):269-276. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Joschko J, Keely E, Grant R, Moroz I, Graveline M, Drimer N, et al. Electronic consultation services worldwide: environmental scan. J Med Internet Res. Dec 21, 2018;20(12):e11112. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Baines R, Tredinnick-Rowe J, Jones R, Chatterjee A. Barriers and enablers in implementing electronic consultations in primary care: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. Nov 12, 2020;22(11):e19375. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Camoni N, Cirio S, Salerno C, Balian A, Bruni G, D'Avola V, et al. COVID-19 pandemic and remote consultations in children: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Aug 09, 2022;19(16):9787. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Leyton C, Zhang C, Rikin S. Evaluation of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on electronic consultation use in primary care. Telemed J E Health. Jan 2022;28(1):66-72. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Mazón-Ramos P, Román-Rego A, Díaz-Fernández B, Portela-Romero M, Garcia-Vega D, Bastos-Fernández M, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon a universal electronic consultation program (e-consultation) between general practitioners and cardiologists. Rev Clin Esp (Barc). 2023;223(6):350-358. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Shaver J. The state of telehealth before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Prim Care. Dec 2022;49(4):517-530. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Singh J, Garber GE, Keely E, Guglani S, Liddy C. Evaluation of an electronic consultation service for COVID-19 care. Ann Fam Med. 2022;20(3):220-226. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Singh J, Keely E, Guglani S, Garber G, Liddy C. The utilization of an electronic consultation service during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Telemed J E Health. Jul 2022;28(7):994-1000. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Stephens J, Greenberg GM. Asynchronous telehealth. Prim Care. Dec 2022;49(4):531-541. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. O'Toole A, Joo J, DesGroseilliers J, Liddy C, Glassman S, Afkham A, et al. The association between question type and the outcomes of a dermatology eConsult service. Int J Dermatol. Aug 2017;56(8):836-841. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Seiger K, Hawryluk EB, Kroshinsky D, Kvedar JC, Das S. Pediatric dermatology eConsults: reduced wait times and dermatology office visits. Pediatr Dermatol. Sep 2020;37(5):804-810. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Su MY, Das S. Expansion of asynchronous teledermatology during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Acad Dermatol. Dec 2020;83(6):e471-e472. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Shehata F, Posner G, Afkham A, Liddy C, Keely E. Evaluation of an electronic consultation service in obstetrics and gynecology in Ontario. Obstet Gynecol. Jun 2016;127(6):1033-1038. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Liddy C, Smyth C, Poulin PA, Joschko J, Rebelo M, Keely E. Improving access to chronic pain services through eConsultation: a cross-sectional study of the champlain BASE eConsult service. Pain Med. Jun 2016;17(6):1049-1057. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Liddy C, Smyth C, Poulin PA, Joschko J, Sheppard M, Keely E. Supporting better access to chronic pain specialists: the champlain BASE eConsult service. J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30(6):766-774. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Corbetta-Rastelli CM, Morgan TK, Homaifar N, Deangelis L, Autry AM. Experiences in electronic consultation (eConsult) service in gynecology from a quaternary academic medical center. J Med Syst. Apr 06, 2021;45(5):58. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Buddemeyer K. Implementation and evaluation of a gynecology eConsult service within a large health system A287. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139(1):83. [CrossRef]
    39. Sakanovic A, Hadden WJ, Guglani S, Afkham A, Liddy C, Keely E, et al. The effect of eConsult on the provision of orthopaedic services in Nunavut. Int J Circumpolar Health. Dec 2022;81(1):2151551. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Liddy C, Guglani S, Ratzlaff T, Campbell RJ, Cranston L, Miville A, et al. Expanding the scope of an eConsult service: acceptability and feasibility of an optometry-ophthalmology pilot project. Can J Ophthalmol. Jun 2023;58(3):204-211. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Hadden WJ, Guglani S, Sakanovic A, Liddy C, Keely E, Meulenkamp B. Access to orthopedic specialist service in Ontario via eConsult. Can J Surg. 2022;65(5):E643-E649. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Carroll JC, Liddy C, Afkham A, Keely E, Goh ES, Graham GE, et al. CanIMPACT. Use of eConsult to enhance genetics service delivery in primary care: a multimethod study. Genet Med. Oct 2022;24(10):2034-2041. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Pun N, Arnaout A, Tran C, Liddy C, Keely E. Comparing the content of traditional faxed consultations to eConsults within an academic endocrinology clinic. J Clin Transl Endocrinol. Mar 2021;24:100260. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Leduc JG, Keely E, Liddy C, Afkham A, Marovac M, Guglani S. Improving primary care access to respirologists using eConsult. Int J Qual Health Care. Jul 24, 2021;33(3):mzab105. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Keely E, Rostom K, Smith D, Liddy C. A comparison of faxed referrals and eConsult questions for rheumatology referrals: a descriptive study. CMAJ Open. 2021;9(1):E38-E43. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Zhu C, Williamson J, Lin A, Bush K, Hakim A, Upadhyaya K, et al. Implications for telemedicine for surgery patients after COVID-19: survey of patient and provider experiences. Am Surg. Aug 2020;86(8):907-915. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Deeds SA, Dowdell KJ, Chew LD, Ackerman SL. Implementing an opt-in eConsult program at seven academic medical centers: a qualitative analysis of primary care provider experiences. J Gen Intern Med. Aug 2019;34(8):1427-1433. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Liddy C, Afkham A, Drosinis P, Joschko J, Keely E. Impact of and satisfaction with a new eConsult service: a mixed methods study of primary care providers. J Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28(3):394-403. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Liddy C, Moroz I, Mihan A, Keely E. Assessment of the generalizability of an eConsult service through implementation in a new health region. J Am Board Fam Med. 2019;32(2):146-157. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Keely E, Afkham A, Liddy C. Insights into specialists' participation and self-reported billing times in a multispecialty eConsult service: correlating response length with outcomes and satisfaction. Telemed J E Health. Apr 2020;26(4):419-425. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Keely E, Williams R, Epstein G, Afkham A, Liddy C. Specialist perspectives on Ontario provincial electronic consultation services. Telemed J E Health. Jan 2019;25(1):3-10. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Rodriguez KL, Burkitt KH, Bayliss NK, Skoko JE, Switzer GE, Zickmund SL, et al. Veteran, primary care provider, and specialist satisfaction with electronic consultation. JMIR Med Inform. Jan 14, 2015;3(1):e5. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Singer A, Ireland L, Sepehri Z, Brown K, Turner K, Liddy C, et al. Evaluation of BASE eConsult Manitoba: patient perspectives on the use of electronic consultation to improve access to specialty advice in Manitoba. BMC Health Serv Res. Feb 09, 2023;23(1):131. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Ackerman SL, Gleason N, Shipman SA. Comparing patients' experiences with electronic and traditional consultation: results from a multisite survey. J Gen Intern Med. Apr 2020;35(4):1135-1142. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Joschko J, Liddy C, Moroz I, Reiche M, Crowe L, Afkham A, et al. Just a click away: exploring patients' perspectives on receiving care through the Champlain BASETM eConsult service. Fam Pract. Jan 16, 2018;35(1):93-98. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Whited JD, Hall RP, Foy ME, Marbrey LE, Grambow SC, Dudley TK, et al. Patient and clinician satisfaction with a store-and-forward teledermatology consult system. Telemed J E Health. 2004;10(4):422-431. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Anderson D, Porto A, Koppel J, Macri G, Wright M. Impact of endocrinology eConsults on access to endocrinology care for Medicaid patients. Telemed J E Health. Nov 2020;26(11):1383-1390. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Wang RF, Trinidad J, Lawrence J, Pootrakul L, Forrest LA, Goist K, et al. Improved patient access and outcomes with the integration of an eConsult program (teledermatology) within a large academic medical center. J Am Acad Dermatol. Dec 2020;83(6):1633-1638. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Vimalananda VG, Orlander JD, Afable MK, Fincke BG, Solch AK, Rinne ST, et al. Electronic consultations (E-consults) and their outcomes: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Mar 01, 2020;27(3):471-479. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Olayiwola JN, Potapov A, Gordon A, Jurado J, Magana C, Knox M, et al. Electronic consultation impact from the primary care clinician perspective: outcomes from a national sample. J Telemed Telecare. Sep 2019;25(8):493-498. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Liddy C, Moroz I, Afkham A, Keely E. Sustainability of a primary care-driven eConsult service. Ann Fam Med. Mar 2018;16(2):120-126. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Kwok J, Olayiwola JN, Knox M, Murphy EJ, Tuot DS. Electronic consultation system demonstrates educational benefit for primary care providers. J Telemed Telecare. Aug 2018;24(7):465-472. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Liddy C, Abu-Hijleh T, Joschko J, Archibald D, Keely E. eConsults and learning between primary care providers and specialists. Fam Med. Jul 2019;51(7):567-573. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Archibald D, Grant R, Tuot DS, Liddy C, Sewell JL, Price DW, et al. Development of eConsult reflective learning tools for healthcare providers: a pragmatic mixed methods approach. BMC Prim Care. Jan 16, 2023;24(1):15. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Hakimjavadi R, Levi C, LeBlanc K, Guglani S, Helmer-Smith M, Joschko J, et al. Electronic consultation by advanced practice nurses to improve access to specialist care for older adults. J Gerontol Nurs. Apr 2022;48(4):33-40. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Anderson D, Villagra VG, Coman E, Ahmed T, Porto A, Jepeal N, et al. Reduced cost of specialty care using electronic consultations for Medicaid patients. Health Aff (Millwood). Dec 2018;37(12):2031-2036. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Anderson D, Villagra V, Coman EN, Zlateva I, Hutchinson A, Villagra J, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiology eConsults for Medicaid patients. Am J Manag Care. Jan 01, 2018;24(1):e9-16. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    68. Liddy C, Drosinis P, Deri Armstrong C, McKellips F, Afkham A, Keely E. What are the cost savings associated with providing access to specialist care through the champlain BASE eConsult service? A costing evaluation. BMJ Open. Jun 23, 2016;6(6):e010920. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Osman M, Zaidi D, Kurzawa J, Bialy L, Featherstone R, Schick-Makaroff K, et al. SUN-234 Electronic consultations (eConsult) to enhance access to nephrologists care: what are the barriers and facilitators to implementation? Kidney Int Rep. Jul 2019;4(7):S256-S257. [CrossRef]
    70. Bello A, Zaidi D, Braam B, Courtney M, Glassford J, Jindal K, et al. Protocol: improving access to specialist nephrology care among rural/remote dwellers of Alberta: the role of electronic consultation in improving care for patients with chronic kidney disease. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2019;6:2054358119878715. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Osman MA, Schick-Makaroff K, Thompson S, Bialy L, Featherstone R, Kurzawa J, et al. Barriers and facilitators for implementation of electronic consultations (eConsult) to enhance access to specialist care: a scoping review. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(5):e001629. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Rikin S, Epstein EJ, Gendlina I. Rapid implementation of inpatient eConsult programme addresses new challenges for patient care during COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Innov. Apr 2021;7(2):271-277. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Moroz I, Archibald D, Breton M, Cote-Boileau E, Crowe L, Horsley T, et al. Key factors for national spread and scale-up of an eConsult innovation. Health Res Policy Syst. Jun 03, 2020;18(1):57. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Breton M, Ann Smithman M, Lamoureux‐Lamarche C, Dumas Pilon M, Keely E, Farrell G, et al. Dissemination, implementation, and impact: strategies to support the provincial scaling-up of Econsult in Canada. Health Serv Res. Aug 20, 2020;55(S1):58-59. [CrossRef]
    75. Breton M, Smithman MA, Liddy C, Keely E, Farrell G, Singer A, et al. Scaling up eConsult for access to specialists in primary healthcare across four Canadian provinces: study protocol of a multiple case study. Health Res Policy Syst. Sep 12, 2019;17(1):83. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Breton M, Lamoureux-Lamarche C, Smithman MA, Keely E, Pilon MD, Singer A, et al. Scaling-up eConsult: promising strategies to address enabling factors in four jurisdictions in Canada. Int J Health Policy Manag. Sep 05, 2023;12:7203. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Zheng L, Guggina LM, Zhou XA, Wanat KA, Brieva JC, Trinidad JC, et al. Perceptions of telehealth among inpatient consultative dermatology providers and practice patterns during COVID-19. Arch Dermatol Res. Oct 2023;315(8):2449-2451. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. Mohammed R, Elmajid EA, Amine H, Khadija C. Acceptance factors of telemedicine technology during COVID-19 pandemic among health professionals: a qualitative study. Healthc Technol Lett. 2023;10(1-2):23-33. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    79. Zahid N, Ali A, Gul B, Danish SH, Israr SN, Anwar J. Perception and attitude of Pakistani doctors toward the use of telemedicine technology. Cureus. Nov 2022;14(11):e31556. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. El-Yafouri R, Klieb L, Sabatier V. Psychological, social and technical factors influencing electronic medical records systems adoption by United States physicians: a systematic model. Health Res Policy Syst. May 02, 2022;20(1):48. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Al-Otaibi J, Tolma E, Alali W, Alhuwail D, Aljunid SM. The factors contributing to physicians' current use of and satisfaction with electronic health records in Kuwait's public health care: cross-sectional questionnaire study. JMIR Med Inform. Oct 07, 2022;10(10):e36313. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    82. Yousef CC, Salgado TM, Farooq A, Burnett K, McClelland LE, Abu Esba LC, et al. Health care providers' acceptance of a personal health record: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. Oct 21, 2021;23(10):e31582. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    83. Kim S, Lee K, Hwang H, Yoo S. Analysis of the factors influencing healthcare professionals' adoption of mobile electronic medical record (EMR) using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in a tertiary hospital. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Jan 30, 2016;16:12. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Zha H, Liu K, Tang T, Yin Y, Dou B, Jiang L, et al. Acceptance of clinical decision support system to prevent venous thromboembolism among nurses: an extension of the UTAUT model. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Aug 19, 2022;22(1):221. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    85. Jones EK, Banks A, Melton GB, Porta CM, Tignanelli CJ. Barriers to and facilitators for acceptance of comprehensive clinical decision support system-driven care maps for patients with thoracic trauma: interview study among health care providers and nurses. JMIR Hum Factors. Mar 16, 2022;9(1):e29019. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Camacho J, Zanoletti-Mannello M, Landis-Lewis Z, Kane-Gill SL, Boyce RD. A conceptual framework to study the implementation of clinical decision support systems (BEAR): literature review and concept mapping. J Med Internet Res. Aug 06, 2020;22(8):e18388. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    87. Zhu Y, Zhao Z, Guo J, Wang Y, Zhang C, Zheng J, et al. Understanding use intention of mHealth applications based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT-2) model in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Feb 10, 2023;20(4):3139. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Kerwagen F, Fuchs KF, Ullrich M, Schulze A, Straka S, Krop P, et al. Usability of a mHealth solution using speech recognition for point-of-care diagnostic management. J Med Syst. Feb 02, 2023;47(1):18. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Schomakers E, Lidynia C, Vervier LS, Calero Valdez A, Ziefle M. Applying an extended UTAUT2 model to explain user acceptance of lifestyle and therapy mobile health apps: survey study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jan 18, 2022;10(1):e27095. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    90. Hajesmaeel-Gohari S, Khordastan F, Fatehi F, Samzadeh H, Bahaadinbeigy K. The most used questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction, usability, acceptance, and quality outcomes of mobile health. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Jan 27, 2022;22(1):22. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    91. Ahadzadeh AS, Wu SL, Ong FS, Deng R. The mediating influence of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology on the relationship between internal health locus of control and mobile health adoption: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. Dec 29, 2021;23(12):e28086. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    92. Heinsch M, Wyllie J, Carlson J, Wells H, Tickner C, Kay-Lambkin F. Theories informing eHealth implementation: systematic review and typology classification. J Med Internet Res. May 31, 2021;23(5):e18500. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    93. Rouidi M, Elouadi AE, Hamdoune A, Choujtani K, Chati A. TAM-UTAUT and the acceptance of remote healthcare technologies by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. Inform Med Unlocked. 2022;32:101008. [CrossRef]
    94. Garavand A, Mohseni M, Asadi H, Etemadi M, Moradi-Joo M, Moosavi A. Factors influencing the adoption of health information technologies: a systematic review. Electron Physician. Aug 2016;8(8):2713-2718. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    95. Wixom BH, Todd PA. A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Inf Syst Res. Mar 2005;16(1):85-102. [CrossRef]
    96. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. Sep 1989;13(3):319-339. [CrossRef]
    97. Taylor S, Todd PA. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf Syst Res. Jun 1995;6(2):144-176. [CrossRef]
    98. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci. Feb 2000;46(2):186-204. [CrossRef]
    99. Moore GC, Benbasat I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res. Sep 1991;2(3):192-222. [CrossRef]
    100. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User Acceptance of Information Technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425-478. [CrossRef]
    101. Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Q. 2012;36(1):157-178. [CrossRef]
    102. Jacob C, Sanchez-Vazquez A, Ivory C. Understanding clinicians' adoption of mobile health tools: a qualitative review of the most used frameworks. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jul 06, 2020;8(7):e18072. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    103. Nadal C, Sas C, Doherty G. Technology acceptance in mobile health: scoping review of definitions, models, and measurement. J Med Internet Res. Jul 06, 2020;22(7):e17256. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    104. Aggelidis VP, Chatzoglou PD. Using a modified technology acceptance model in hospitals. Int J Med Inform. Feb 2009;78(2):115-126. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    105. Kim J, Park H. Development of a health information technology acceptance model using consumers' health behavior intention. J Med Internet Res. Oct 01, 2012;14(5):e133. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    106. Hung M, Jen W. The adoption of mobile health management services: an empirical study. J Med Syst. Jun 2012;36(3):1381-1388. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    107. Harst L, Lantzsch H, Scheibe M. Theories predicting end-user acceptance of telemedicine use: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. May 21, 2019;21(5):e13117. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    108. An MH, You SC, Park RW, Lee S. Using an extended technology acceptance model to understand the factors influencing telehealth utilization after flattening the COVID-19 curve in South Korea: cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Med Inform. Jan 08, 2021;9(1):e25435. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    109. Torp DC, Sandbæk A, Prætorius T. The technology acceptance of video consultations for type 2 diabetes care in general practice: cross-sectional survey of Danish general practitioners. J Med Internet Res. Aug 30, 2022;24(8):e37223. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    110. Lewis W, Agarwal R, Sambamurthy V. Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: an empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Q. 2003;27(4):657-678. [CrossRef]
    111. Wu J, Lederer A. A meta-analysis of the role of environment-based voluntariness in information technology acceptance. MIS Q. 2009;33(2):419-432. [CrossRef]
    112. Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf Syst Res. 2000;11(4):342-365. [CrossRef]
    113. Bhattacherjee A. Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q. Sep 2001;25(3):351-370. [CrossRef]
    114. Chen R. Modeling of user acceptance of consumer e-commerce website. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering on Web Information Systems Engineering. 2005. Presented at: WISE '05; November 20-22, 2005:454-462; New York, NY. URL: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11581062_35 [CrossRef]
    115. Venkatesh V, Goyal S. Expectation disconfirmation and technology adoption: polynomial modeling and response surface analysis. MIS Q. 2010;34(2):281-303. [CrossRef]
    116. Pieters JJ, Kokkinou A, van Kollenburg T. Understanding blockchain technology adoption by non-experts: an application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Oper Res Forum. Dec 23, 2021;3(1):1. [CrossRef]
    117. Chao C. Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: an application and extension of the UTAUT model. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1652. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    118. Goodhue DL, Thompson RL. Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Q. Jun 1995;19(2):213-236. [CrossRef]
    119. Wang SL, Lin HI. Integrating TTF and IDT to evaluate user intention of big data analytics in mobile cloud healthcare system. Behav Inform Technol. Jun 14, 2019;38(9):974-985. [CrossRef]
    120. Ali SB, Romero J, Morrison K, Hafeez B, Ancker JS. Focus section health IT usability: applying a task-technology fit model to adapt an electronic patient portal for patient work. Appl Clin Inform. Jan 2018;9(1):174-184. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    121. Chen P, Yu C, Chen GY. Applying task-technology fit model to the healthcare sector: a case study of hospitals' computed tomography patient-referral mechanism. J Med Syst. Aug 2015;39(8):80. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    122. Chen R, Hsiao J. Health professionals' perspectives on electronic medical record infusion and individual performance: model development and questionnaire survey study. JMIR Med Inform. Nov 30, 2021;9(11):e32180. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    123. Lee H, Ramayah T. An examination of the effects of task technology fit and hospital information system satisfaction in public hospital malaysia: a structural model. Adv Sci Lett. Feb 01, 2018;24(2):1479-1483. [CrossRef]
    124. Spies R, Grobbelaar S, Botha A. A scoping review of the application of the task-technology fit theory. In: Proceedings of the 19th IFIP WG 6.11 Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society on Responsible Design, Implementation and Use of Information and Communication Technology. 2020. Presented at: IFIP WG '20; April 6-8, 2020:397-408; Skukuza, South Africa. URL: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-44999-5_33 [CrossRef]
    125. Strachna O, Asan O, Stetson PD. Managing critical patient-reported outcome measures in oncology settings: system development and retrospective study. JMIR Med Inform. Nov 03, 2022;10(11):e38483. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    126. Wanti LP, Insan HF, Prasetya NW. End user satisfaction for location health service application with analysis of task technology fit. Lontar Komputer J Ilmiah Teknol Info. Jul 13, 2020;11(2):76. [CrossRef]
    127. Abdekhoda M, Dehnad A, Zarei J. Factors influencing adoption of e-learning in healthcare: integration of UTAUT and TTF model. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Dec 09, 2022;22(1):327. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    128. Bjerkan J, Kane B, Uhrenfeldt L, Veie M, Fossum M. Citizen-patient involvement in the development of mHealth technology: protocol for a systematic scoping review. JMIR Res Protoc. Aug 28, 2020;9(8):e16781. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    129. Chen TT, Chang YJ, Hsu TH, Hsu HK. Using UTAUT, TTF, and PR integrating models to evaluate employees’ acceptance and behavioral intention of PHM-based system in the military industr. In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management. 2022. Presented at: ICPHM '22; June 6-8, 2022:88-93; Detroit, MI. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9815710 [CrossRef]
    130. Kang H, Han J, Kwon GH. The acceptance behavior of smart home health care services in South Korea: an integrated model of UTAUT and TTF. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Oct 14, 2022;19(20):13279. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    131. Siebert JN, Gosetto L, Sauvage M, Bloudeau L, Suppan L, Rodieux F, PedAMINES Trial Group, et al. PedAMINES Prehospital Group. Usability testing and technology acceptance of an mHealth app at the point of care during simulated pediatric in- and out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitations: study nested within 2 multicenter randomized controlled trials. JMIR Hum Factors. Mar 01, 2022;9(1):e35399. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    132. Wang H, Tao D, Yu N, Qu X. Understanding consumer acceptance of healthcare wearable devices: an integrated model of UTAUT and TTF. Int J Med Inform. Jul 2020;139:104156. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    133. Zaidi S, Kazi AM, Riaz A, Ali A, Najmi R, Jabeen R, et al. Operability, usefulness, and task-technology fit of an mHealth app for delivering primary health care services by community health workers in underserved areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. Sep 17, 2020;22(9):e18414. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    134. Norzaidi MD, Salwani MI. Evaluating technology resistance and technology satisfaction on students' performance. Campus Wide Inf Syst. 2009;26:298-312. [CrossRef]
    135. Mahdavian M, Wattanapongsakorn N, Azadeh M, Ayati A, Mahdavian M, Jabbari M, et al. Identifying main resistance factors in ERP implementation: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology. 2012. Presented at: ECTICon '12; March 1-2, 2012:1-4; Phetchaburi, Thailand. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6254311 [CrossRef]
    136. Ngafeeson MN, Midha V. An exploratory study of user resistance in healthcare IT. Int J Electron Finance. 2014;8(1):74-94. [CrossRef]
    137. Hsiao J, Chen R. Understanding determinants of health care professionals' perspectives on mobile health continuance and performance. JMIR Med Inform. Mar 18, 2019;7(1):e12350. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    138. Alhendawi KM. Task-technology fit model: modelling and assessing the nurses’ satisfaction with health information system using AI prediction models. Int J Health Manag. 2022;17:12-24. [CrossRef]
    139. Liddy C, Maranger J, Afkham A, Keely E. Ten steps to establishing an e-consultation service to improve access to specialist care. Telemed J E Health. Dec 2013;19(12):982-990. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    140. Liddy C, Boulay E, Crowe L, Dumas-Pilon M, Drimer N, Farrell G, et al. Impact of the Connected Medicine collaborative in improving access to specialist care: a cross-sectional analysis. CMAJ Open. 2021;9(4):E1187-E1194. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    141. Kumar R. Research Methodology: A Step-By-Step Guide for Beginners. 4th edition. London, UK. SAGE Publications; Aug 29, 2019.
    142. Goodhue DL, Lewis W, Thompson R. Does PLS have advantages for small sample size or non-normal data? MIS Q. 2012;36(3):981-1001. [CrossRef]
    143. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Pieper TM, Ringle CM. The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: a review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Plan. Oct 2012;45(5-6):320-340. [CrossRef]
    144. Hair Jr JF, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser VG. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Eur Bus Rev. Mar 04, 2014;26(2):106-121. [CrossRef]
    145. Henseler J, Hubona G, Ray PA. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Ind Manage Data Syst. Feb 2016;116(1):2-20. [CrossRef]
    146. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev. Jan 14, 2019;31(1):2-24. [CrossRef]
    147. Benitez J, Henseler J, Castillo A, Schuberth F. How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research. Inf Manag. Mar 2020;57(2):103168. [CrossRef]
    148. Chin W, Cheah J, Liu Y, Ting H, Lim X, Cham TH. Demystifying the role of causal-predictive modeling using partial least squares structural equation modeling in information systems research. Ind Manage Data Syst. Aug 04, 2020;120(12):2161-2209. [CrossRef]
    149. Hair Jr. JF, Matthews LM, Matthews RL, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. Int J Multivar Data Anal. 2017;1(2):107-123. [CrossRef]
    150. Williams MD, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review. J Enterp Inf Manag. Apr 13, 2015;28(3):443-488. [CrossRef]
    151. So S, Ismail MR, Jaafar S. Exploring acceptance of artificial intelligence amongst healthcare personnel: a case in a private medical centre. Int J Adv Eng Manag. 2021;3(9):56-65. [CrossRef]
    152. Bagozzi RP, Phillips LW. Representing and testing organizational theories: a holistic construal. Adm Sci Q. Sep 1982;27(3):459. [CrossRef]
    153. Venkatraman N, Grant JH. Construct measurement in organizational strategy research: a critique and proposal. Acad Manage Rev. Jan 1986;11(1):71-87. [CrossRef]
    154. Peter JP. Reliability: a review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. J Mark Res. Nov 28, 2018;16(1):6-17. [CrossRef]
    155. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. 7th edition. New York, NY. Pearson Education; 2010.
    156. Robinson JP, Wrightsman LS, Shaver PR. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. Houston, TX. Gulf Professional Publishing; 1991.
    157. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res. Nov 28, 2018;18(1):39-50. [CrossRef]
    158. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull. May 1988;103(3):411-423. [CrossRef]
    159. Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. Partial least squares structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plan. Feb 2013;46(1-2):1-12. [CrossRef]
    160. Chin WW. The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling. East Sussex, UK. Psychology Press; 1998.
    161. Falk RF, Miller NB. A Primer for Soft Modeling. Akron, OH. University of Akron Press; 1992.
    162. Ho K, Ho C, Chung M. Theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance of the nursing process information system. PLoS One. 2019;14(6):e0217622. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    163. Paré G, Lepanto L, Aubry D, Sicotte C. Toward a multidimensional assessment of picture archiving and communication system success. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(4):471-479. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    164. William HD, Ephraim RM. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manag Inf Syst. Dec 23, 2014;19(4):9-30. [CrossRef]
    165. Kabra G, Ramesh A, Akhtar P, Dash MK. Understanding behavioural intention to use information technology: insights from humanitarian practitioners. Telemat Inform. Nov 2017;34(7):1250-1261. [CrossRef]
    166. DeLone WH, McLean ER. Information systems success measurement. Found Trends Inf Syst. 2016;2(1):1-116. [CrossRef]
    167. Kissi J, Dai B, Dogbe CS, Banahene J, Ernest O. Predictive factors of physicians' satisfaction with telemedicine services acceptance. Health Informatics J. Sep 2020;26(3):1866-1880. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    168. Maillet É, Mathieu L, Sicotte C. Modeling factors explaining the acceptance, actual use and satisfaction of nurses using an electronic patient record in acute care settings: an extension of the UTAUT. Int J Med Inform. Jan 2015;84(1):36-47. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    169. Hsiao J, Chen R. An investigation on task-technology fit of mobile nursing information systems for nursing performance. Comput Inform Nurs. May 2012;30(5):265-273. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    170. Kowitlawakul Y. The technology acceptance model: predicting nurses' intention to use telemedicine technology (eICU). Comput Inform Nurs. Jul 2011;29(7):411-418. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    171. Hsiao J, Chang H, Chen R. A study of factors affecting acceptance of hospital information systems: a nursing perspective. J Nurs Res. Jun 2011;19(2):150-160. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    172. Melas CD, Zampetakis LA, Dimopoulou A, Moustakis V. Modeling the acceptance of clinical information systems among hospital medical staff: an extended TAM model. J Biomed Inform. Aug 2011;44(4):553-564. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    173. Pai FY, Huang KI. Applying the technology acceptance model to the introduction of healthcare information systems. Technol Forecast Soc Change. May 2011;78(4):650-660. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    174. Wu J, Shen W, Lin L, Greenes RA, Bates DW. Testing the technology acceptance model for evaluating healthcare professionals' intention to use an adverse event reporting system. Int J Qual Health Care. Apr 2008;20(2):123-129. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    175. Yu P, Li H, Gagnon M. Health IT acceptance factors in long-term care facilities: a cross-sectional survey. Int J Med Inform. Apr 2009;78(4):219-229. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    176. Lin C, Lin I, Roan J. Barriers to physicians' adoption of healthcare information technology: an empirical study on multiple hospitals. J Med Syst. Jun 2012;36(3):1965-1977. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    177. Becker D. Acceptance of mobile mental health treatment applications. Procedia Comput Sci. 2016;98:220-227. [CrossRef]
    178. Chang I, Hwang H, Hung W, Li Y. Physicians’ acceptance of pharmacokinetics-based clinical decision support systems. Expert Syst Appl. Aug 2007;33(2):296-303. [CrossRef]
    179. Aggelidis VP, Chatzoglou PD. Hospital information systems: measuring end user computing satisfaction (EUCS). J Biomed Inform. Jun 2012;45(3):566-579. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    180. Pynoo B, Devolder P, Duyck W, van Braak J, Sijnave B, Duyck P. Do hospital physicians' attitudes change during PACS implementation? A cross-sectional acceptance study. Int J Med Inform. Feb 2012;81(2):88-97. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    181. Kijsanayotin B, Pannarunothai S, Speedie SM. Factors influencing health information technology adoption in Thailand's community health centers: applying the UTAUT model. Int J Med Inform. Jun 2009;78(6):404-416. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    182. Saigí-Rubió F, Vidal-Alaball J, Torrent-Sellens J, Jiménez-Zarco A, López Segui F, Carrasco Hernandez M, et al. Determinants of Catalan public primary care professionals' intention to use digital clinical consultations (eConsulta) in the post-COVID-19 context: optical illusion or permanent transformation? J Med Internet Res. May 31, 2021;23(6):e28944. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    183. Holden RJ, Karsh B. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform. Feb 2010;43(1):159-172. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    184. Morton ME, Wiedenbeck S. A framework for predicting EHR adoption attitudes: a physician survey. Perspect Health Inf Manag. Sep 16, 2009;6(Fall):1a. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    185. Yamin MA, Alyoubi BA. Adoption of telemedicine applications among Saudi citizens during COVID-19 pandemic: an alternative health delivery system. J Infect Public Health. Dec 2020;13(12):1845-1855. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    186. Wan L, Xie S, Shu A. Toward an understanding of university students’ continued intention to use MOOCs: when UTAUT model meets TTF model. SAGE Open. Jul 16, 2020;10(3):215824402094185. [CrossRef]
    187. Schaper LK, Pervan GP. An investigation of factors affecting technology acceptance and use decisions by Australian allied health therapists. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2007. Presented at: HICSS '07; January 3-6, 2007:141; Waikoloa, HI. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4076655 [CrossRef]
    188. Tung F, Chang S. A new hybrid model for exploring the adoption of online nursing courses. Nurse Educ Today. Apr 2008;28(3):293-300. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    189. Raymond L, Paré G, Ortiz de Guinea A, Poba-Nzaou P, Trudel M, Marsan J, et al. Improving performance in medical practices through the extended use of electronic medical record systems: a survey of Canadian family physicians. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Apr 14, 2015;15:27. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    190. Lin T. Mobile nursing information system utilization: the task-technology fit perspective. Comput Inform Nurs. Mar 2014;32(3):129-137. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    BASE: Building Access to Specialists Through eConsultation
    BI: behavioral intention
    eConsult: electronic consultation
    EE: effort expectancy
    FC: facilitating condition
    MSSS: Ministry of Health and Social Services
    PCP: primary care provider
    PE: performance expectancy
    PLS: partial least squares
    PU: perceived usefulness
    SI: social influence
    TAC: task characteristics
    TAM: technology acceptance model
    TEC: technology characteristics
    TTF: Task-Technology Fit
    UTAUT: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

    Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 19.09.23; peer-reviewed by H Motaghi, O Strachna, C Yousef; comments to author 10.03.24; revised version received 10.04.24; accepted 25.04.24; published 30.05.24.

    Copyright

    ©Véronique Nabelsi, Annabelle Lévesque-Chouinard. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 30.05.2024.

    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 Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.