Healthc Inform Res.  2022 Jan;28(1):68-76. 10.4258/hir.2022.28.1.68.

Medical Representatives’ User Acceptance of Remote e-Detailing Technology: A Moderated Mediation Analysis of Technology Acceptance Model

• Kim HW
• Chang H

• KMID: 2526495
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2022.28.1.68

Abstract

Objectives
E-detailing methods have steadily evolved toward more contactless and interactive channels, which have received considerable attention during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis. Based on the technology acceptance model, this study attempted to identify medical representatives’ perceptions and attitudes towards individual innovativeness that affected users’ intentions to adopt new e-detailing devices utilizing information and communication technology.
Methods
The subjects of the current study were medical representatives at three major multinational or domestic pharmaceutical companies that operate in South Korea. In total, 300 questionnaires were distributed and 221 were returned. The survey elicited information on respondents’ perceived ease of use (PEOU), perceived usefulness (PU), personal innovativeness (PI), and user acceptance (UA) of remote e-detailing technology, in addition to demographic information and occupational characteristics. Structural equation models were fitted to the data. Separate analyses were conducted for different platform types, PCs and mobile devices.
Results
PEOU showed a statistically significant positive association with PU. PEOU, PU, and PI were associated with UA, and PI was a statistically significant moderator. On average, PEOU explained up to approximately 45% of the total variation in UA of remote e-detailing.
Conclusions
The analysis supports the framework of the technology acceptance model. PEOU was a substantially strong direct predictor of UA, and PI had a statistically significant, positive moderating effect between PU and UA. Medical representatives with pro-innovative attitudes are more likely to play the role of early adopters of remote e-detailing if they find this technology to be more useful.

Keyword

Drug Industry; Marketing; Diffusion of Innovation; Mobile Applications; Mediation Analysis

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Theoretical framework.

Reference

References

1. Kwak ES, Chang H. Medical representatives’ intention to use information technology in pharmaceutical marketing. Healthc Inform Res. 2016; 22(4):342–50.

2. Alkhateeb FM, Doucette WR. Electronic detailing (e-detailing) of pharmaceuticals to physicians: a review. Int J Pharm Healthc Mark. 2008; 2(3):235–45.

3. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989; 13(3):319–40.

4. Fishbein MA, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley (MA);Reading: 1975.

5. Marangunic N, Granic A. Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Univers Access Inf Soc. 2015; 14(1):81–95.

6. Chen SC, Shing-Han L, Chien-Yi L. Recent related research in technology acceptance model: a literature review. Aust J Bus Manag Res. 2011; 1(9):124–7.

7. Rahimi B, Nadri H, Lotfnezhad Afshar H, Timpka T. A systematic review of the technology acceptance model in health informatics. Appl Clin Inform. 2018; 9(3):604–34.

8. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York (NY): Free Press;2003.

9. Flynn LR, Goldsmith RE. A validation of the Goldsmith and Hofacker innovativeness scale. Educ Psychol Meas. 1993; 53(4):1105–16.

10. Midgley DF, Dowling GR. Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement. J Consum Res. 1978; 4(4):229–42.

11. Koivisto K, Makkonen M, Frank L, Riekkinen J. Extending the technology acceptance model with personal innovativeness and technology readiness: a comparison of three models. In : Proceedings of the 29th Bled eConference “Digital Economy”; 2016 Jun 19–22; Bled, Slovenia. p. 113–28.

12. Al-Debei MM, Al-Lozi E. Explaining and predicting the adoption intention of mobile data services: a value-based approach. Comput Human Behav. 2014; 35:326–38.

13. Lu J, Yao JE, Yu CS. Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless Internet services via mobile technology. J Strateg Inf Syst. 2005; 14(3):245–68.

14. Leonard-Barton D, Deschamps I. Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology. Manag Sci. 1988; 34(10):1252–65.

15. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Guilford Press;2017.

16. Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behav Res. 2007; 42(1):185–227.

17. Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform. 2010; 43(1):159–72.

18. Moon BC, Chang H. Technology acceptance and adoption of innovative smartphone uses among hospital employees. Healthc Inform Res. 2014; 20(4):304–12.

19. Agarwal R, Prasad J. A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Inf Syst Res. 1998; 9(2):204–15.

20. Zhao X, Lynch JG Jr, Chen Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. J Consum Res. 2010; 37(2):197–206.

21. Sobel ME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociol Methodol. 1982; 13:290–312.

22. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986; 51(6):1173–82.

23. Shrout PE, Bolger N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol Methods. 2002; 7(4):422–45.