ArticleThe Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association2025
A reliable tool for assessment of acceptance of e-consultation service in hospitals: the modified e-consultation Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire.
Article in The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, 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.
- Advancing Undergraduate Student Mental Healthcare of Social Anxiety Disorder: Evaluating the Acceptance of AR-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Through TAM-Based Constructs.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Role of Computer Anxiety and Computer Experience in Digital Health Systems Adoption among Healthcare Workers in Malawi.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInnovative approaches like e-consultation services are critical for improving access to healthcare and promoting equity, particularly in under-resourced settings. Despite their growing prominence, limited tools are available to assess healthcare professionals' acceptance and satisfaction with these services. This study aimed to validate the modified e-consultation TAM questionnaire as a reliable instrument for assessing physicians' perspectives on e-consultation service.
methodsThis study focuses exclusively on physicians receiving (not providing) e-consultation service within the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population. The tool used for assessing their acceptance of the service consists of three sections: demographic data, items assessing perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU) of e-consultation, and questions addressing physicians' satisfaction, challenges, and suggestions to improve e-consultation services. The questionnaire was subjected to thorough validation, including face validity evaluated by an expert panel and construct validity which was assessed through factor analysis.
resultsThe modified e-consultation TAM questionnaire demonstrated excellent internal reliability, with Cronbach's alpha coefficient exceeding 0.92 for both PU and PEU. Exploratory factor analysis identified two domains, PU and PEU, explaining 81.17% of the variance, with factor loadings ranging from 0.661 to 0.912. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the two-factor model, with standardized factor loadings between 0.80 and 0.95, a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.95, and a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.084.
conclusionThe modified e-consultation TAM questionnaire proves to be a reliable and valid tool for evaluating physicians' acceptance of and satisfaction with e-consultation service. This tool offers potential for future research and practical applications, providing valuable insights to improve the implementation of e-consultation services and inform strategies for advancing healthcare access and equity globally.
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.