International Journal of Research Foundation of Hospital and Healthcare Administration

Register      Login

VOLUME 2 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2014 ) > List of Articles


Hospital Information System Satisfaction in Brazil: Background and Moderating Effects

Gadelha Socorro Nunes, Miranda González Francisco Javier

Citation Information : Nunes GS, Javier MG. Hospital Information System Satisfaction in Brazil: Background and Moderating Effects. Int J Res Foundation Hosp Healthc Adm 2014; 2 (1):1-9.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10035-1007

Published Online: 01-03-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; The Author(s).


How to cite this article

Nunes GS, Javier MGF. Hospital Information System Satisfaction in Brazil: Background and Moderating Effects. Int J Res Foundation Hosp Healthc Adm 2014;2(1):1-9.

PDF Share
  1. The roles of users personal characteristics and organisational support in the attitude towards using ERP systems in a Spanish public hospital. The HIM Journal 2013;42(1):18-28.
  2. Strategic Information Management in Hospitals: An Introduction to Hospital Information Systems (2004. ed.). Springer-Verlag New York Inc 2004.
  3. An investigation on physicians’ acceptance of hospital information systems: a case study. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2012;81(12):810-820.
  4. Public-Private partnerships and public hospital performance in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Health Affairs 2009;28(4):1114-1126.
  5. Hospital Performance in Brazil : The Search for Excellence 2008. Available at:
  6. A comparative study of hospital management in great britain and brazil : cost information use (phd). Aston University 2002. Available at:
  7. Hospital information systems: Measuring end user computing satisfaction (EUCS). Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2012;45(3):566-579.
  8. Information Technology Productivity in the Health Care Industry. ICIS 1996 Proceedings 1996. Available at:
  9. Analyzing cost-effectiveness of organizations: the impact of information technology spending. Journal Management Information Systems 1996;13(2):29-57.
  10. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in healthcare. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2010;43(1):159-172.
  11. Exploring factors affecting the performance of hospital information systems. Journal Information Management 2004;11(2):191-210.
  12. Applications of nursing information systems: sharing the experience of implementation in a hospital. Journal of Nursing 2008;55(3):75-80.
  13. Applying the technology acceptance model to the introduction of healthcare information systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2011;78(4):650-660.
  14. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 1992;3(1):60-95.
  15. Development and validation of an Internet self-efficacy scale. Behaviour and Information Technology 2001;20(4):275-280.
  16. Effects of training on Internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior 2002;18(5):479-494.
  17. A contingency model of computer and Internet self-efficacy. Inf. Manage 2006;43(4): 541-550.
  18. Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems 2008;17(3):236-263.
  19. Measuring web portals success: a respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean information systems success model. International Journal of Business Information Systems. 2013; Available at:
  20. Service Quality: a measure of information systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly 1995;19(2): 173-187.
  21. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal Management Information Systems 2003;19(4):9-30.
  22. Measuring IS User satisfaction: Review and Implications. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2003;12(1). Available at:
  23. A partial test and development of delone and Mclean's Model of IS Success. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 2007;4(1).
  24. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989;13(3): 319-340.
  25. Assessing Government Systems Success: A Validation of the DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success. Government Information Quarterly 2008; 25(4):717-733.
  26. Post-adoption variations in usage and value of E-business by organizations: Cross-Country Evidence from the Retail Industry. Information Systems Research 2005;16(1): 61-84.
  27. Measuring KMS success: a respecification of the DeLone and McLean's model. Information and Management 2006;43(6):728-739.
  28. Measuring mobile patient safety information system success: an empirical study. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2008;77(10):689-697.
  29. Two-stage evaluation of the impact of a nursing information system in Taiwan. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2008;77(10):698-707.
  30. Organizational factors affecting successful adoption of innovative eHealth services: a case study employing the FITT framework. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2009;78(1):39-52.
  31. An extension of trust and TAM model with IDT in the adoption of the electronic logistics information system in HIS in the medical industry. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2008;77(5):324-335.
  32. Health IT acceptance factors in longterm care facilities: a cross-sectional survey. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2009;78(4):219-229.
  33. Electronic health information system implementation models: a review. Studies in health technology and informatics 2012;178:117-123.
  34. The Past, Present and Future of «IS Success». Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2012;13(5). Available at:
  35. SERVQUAL: A multipleitem scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 1988;64(1):12-40.
  36. Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing 1992;56(3):55
  37. Measuring information systems service quality: SERVQUAL from the other side. MIS Quarterly 2002;26(2):145-166.
  38. The relationships among performance of accounting information systems, influence factors and evolution level of information systems. Journal Management Information Systems 1996;12(4):215-239.
  39. Information systems service quality, zone of tolerance, and user satisfaction. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 2012;24(2):50-73.
  40. User Satisfaction with Information Technology Service Delivery: A Social Capital Perspective. Information Systems Research 2012;23(4):1195-1211.
  41. Developing a multidimensional measure of system-use in an organizational context. Information and Management 1998;33(4):171-185.
  42. The importance of user ownership and positive user attitudes in the successful adoption of Community Information Systems. 2001; Article. Available at:
  43. An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success. MIS Quarterly 2001;25(1):17-32.
  44. An empirical test of the DeLone-McLean model of information system success. SIGMIS Database 2005;36(2):8-27.
  45. The usefulness of computer-based information to public managers. MIS Quarterly 1993;17:129-148.
  46. Perceived Usefulness of Information: A Psychometric Examination. Decision Sciences 1980;11(1): 121-134.
  47. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 2000;46(2):186-204.
  48. Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly 2000;24(1): 115-139.
  49. A Knowledge Management Success Model: Theoretical Development and Empirical Validation. Journal Management Information Systems 2007;23(3): 309-347.
  50. Explaining employees’ extended use of complex information systems. European Journal of Information Systems 2007;16(3):216-227.
  51. A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Q. 1994; 18(4):453-461.
  52. The measurement of user information satisfaction. Communication ACM 1983;26(10):785-793.
  53. IS success model in E-Learning context based on students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Systems Education 2010;21(2):173
  54. Development and validation of the computer self-efficacy Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1989;49(4):893-899.
  55. Computer self efficacy and gender: a cross cultural study of Scotland and Romania. Personality and Individual Differences 2000;28(6):1037-1044.
  56. Factorial validity of a computer selfefficacy scale and the impact of computer training. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1994;54(3).
  57. Computer self-efficacy, training effectiveness and user attitudes: an empirical study. Behaviour and information technology 1999;18(4):299-309.
  58. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. En Modern methods for business research. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers 1998;295-336.
  59. A partial least squares latent variable modelling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a monte carlo simulation study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study. Information Systems Research 2003;14(2):189-217.
  60. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal 1999;20(2):195-204.
  61. Multivariate Data Analysis (United States ed of 7th revised ed.). Prentice Hall 2009.
  62. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 1981;18(1):39
  63. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York 1978.
  64. A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press 1992.
  65. Frequently asked questions—partial least squares and PLS-graph. 2000; Home Page [Online]. Available at: http://disc-nt. cba. uh. edu/chin/plsfaq.htm.
  66. A Cross-Cultural Study on Escalation of Commitment Behavior in Software Projects. MIS Quarterly 2000;24(2):299-325.
  67. The moderating effect of gender on relationship quality and loyalty toward Internet service providers. Information Management 2009;46(3): 196-202.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.