Table 3.
Factor analysis of perception items (rotated component matrixa).
|
|
Component | |||
|
|
1 (Ease of use) |
2 (Relative advantage) |
3 (Observability) |
4 (Trialability) |
| Learning to use PHR was easy for me. (EUb) | 0.83 |
|
|
|
| Using PHR is frustrating. (EU) | -0.83 |
|
|
|
| Using PHR requires a lot of mental effort. (EU) | -0.81 |
|
|
|
| Overall, I believe that PHR is easy to use. (EU) | 0.81 |
|
|
|
| Using PHR improves the quality of care I receive. (RA) |
|
0.84 |
|
|
| Using PHR gives me greater control over my care. (RA) |
|
0.78 |
|
|
| The effectiveness of care I receive will not improve by my using PHR. (RA) |
|
-0.72 |
|
|
| Using PHR enables me to contact my doctor’s office more quickly. (RA) |
|
0.70 |
|
|
| I have seen what others can do using PHR. (OB) |
|
|
0.91 |
|
| I have talked to others about using PHR. (OB) |
|
|
0.87 |
|
| I tried PHR on a trial basis to see what it can do for me. (TA) |
|
|
|
0.85 |
| I really did not lose much by trying PHR, even if I would not have liked it. (TA) |
|
|
|
0.80 |
| Eigenvalue | 4.4 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
| Percent variance | 25 | 21 | 14 | 12 |
| Cronbach alpha for scale | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.76 | 0.57 |
| Mean of scale for PHR User, Rejecter, and Non-Adopter groups | User: 4.0 Rejecter: 3.4 Non-adopter: 3.2 |
User: 3.4 Rejecter: 3.2 Non-adopter: 2.9 |
User: 2.5 Rejecter: 2.6 Non-adopter: 2.1 |
User: 3.5 Rejecter: 3.8 Non-adopter: 3.2 |
| P value for comparison of scale among patient groups | P<.001 | P<.001 | P<.001 | P<.001 |
aValues below 0.40 have been suppressed.
bIndicates the domain of diffusion of innovation that the item belongs to: EU = Ease of Use; RA = Relative Advantage; OB = Observability; TA = Trialability