ArticleBMC nursing2025
Perceived acceptance, intention to use and actual use behavior of digital information technologies among nursing professionals in Shanghai: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptance of Technological Innovations in Emergency Departments: An Empirical Study Based on an Extended TAM.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical Nurses' Perceptions of Digital Nursing Technology: A Qualitative Analysis Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB).Nursing open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital information technologies (DITs) can contribute to optimizing the quality and efficiency of healthcare delivery. However, profiles of awareness and use behavior of DITs among Chinese nursing professionals remained limited. This study aimed to investigate the profiles of perceived acceptance, intention to use and use behavior of DITs and identify influencing factors among nursing professionals in hospitals in Shanghai.
methodsA total of 1421 nursing professionals from 20 hospitals across Shanghai were selected as participants between August and October 2021. After excluding missing values, 1395 participants were included in the analyses. Using the technology acceptance model, perceived acceptance of general DITs was measured as perceived ease of use (PEU) and perceived usefulness (PU). Intention to use and use behavior were measured using two single 5-point Likert scales. Linear and logistic regression models and mediation analyses were developed to examine influencing factors.
resultsAll of the PU and PEU items received affirmative responses (agree or strongly agree) among over 50% of participants. Of all participants, 1101 (78.9%) expressed intention to use DITs; 626 (44.9%) were frequent users. Age, bachelor's degree, in-house training on DITs, school-based training, and out-of-hospital training were associated with perceived acceptance. Licensed practical nurse, deputy chief nurse, working years, in-house training, and school-based training were significant predictors of intention to use. Vocational college diploma, bachelor's degree, in-house training, school-based training, out-of-hospital training, tertiary level 1 and tertiary level 2 hospitals, and specialized hospitals were associated with frequent use. Intention to use mediated 42.6% (95%CI: 10.3% ~ 60.4%) of the total effects of perceived acceptance on frequent use of DITs.
conclusionsThis study suggests that although nursing professionals in Shanghai have positive perceived acceptance and strong intention to use DITs, they rarely use DITs in their practice. Therefore, policies and interventions should be developed to enhance the integration of DITs into nursing professionals' daily practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.