Technology Acceptance Model in Medical Education: Systematic Review.

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Jason Wen Yau Lee, Jenelle Yingni Tan, Fernando Bello
{"title":"Technology Acceptance Model in Medical Education: Systematic Review.","authors":"Jason Wen Yau Lee, Jenelle Yingni Tan, Fernando Bello","doi":"10.2196/67873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the growing use of technology in medical education, a framework is needed to evaluate learners' and educators' acceptance of these technologies. In this context, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) offers a valuable theoretical framework, providing insights into the determinants influencing users' acceptance and adoption of technology.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review aims to systematically synthesize the body of research in medical education that uses the TAM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic literature search was conducted using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) approach in February 2024 on the Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science databases, yielding 680 articles. Upon elimination of duplicates and applying the exclusion criteria, a total of 39 articles were retained. To evaluate the quality of the study, the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument score was calculated for each analysis with a qualitative component.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Studies using TAM in medical education began in 2010, with the model's application relatively rare up to 2016. Most of the studies were quantitative, operationalizing the TAM as a survey instrument, but it was also used as a research framework in qualitative data analysis. Structural equation modeling, descriptive analysis, and correlation analysis were the most common data analysis approaches in the studies. E-learning and mobile learning were the predominant learning interventions explored, but there were indications that novel learning technologies such as augmented reality, virtual reality, and 3D printing were being investigated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study's findings reveal an expanding scholarly engagement with using TAM in medical education. Although the TAM has been mostly used as a survey instrument, it can also be adapted as a qualitative research framework to analyze data. This systematic review provides a foundation for future research to understand the factors influencing users' acceptance of technology, especially in medical education.</p>","PeriodicalId":36236,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Education","volume":"11 ","pages":"e67873"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12285687/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/67873","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: With the growing use of technology in medical education, a framework is needed to evaluate learners' and educators' acceptance of these technologies. In this context, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) offers a valuable theoretical framework, providing insights into the determinants influencing users' acceptance and adoption of technology.

Objective: This review aims to systematically synthesize the body of research in medical education that uses the TAM.

Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) approach in February 2024 on the Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science databases, yielding 680 articles. Upon elimination of duplicates and applying the exclusion criteria, a total of 39 articles were retained. To evaluate the quality of the study, the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument score was calculated for each analysis with a qualitative component.

Results: Studies using TAM in medical education began in 2010, with the model's application relatively rare up to 2016. Most of the studies were quantitative, operationalizing the TAM as a survey instrument, but it was also used as a research framework in qualitative data analysis. Structural equation modeling, descriptive analysis, and correlation analysis were the most common data analysis approaches in the studies. E-learning and mobile learning were the predominant learning interventions explored, but there were indications that novel learning technologies such as augmented reality, virtual reality, and 3D printing were being investigated.

Conclusions: The study's findings reveal an expanding scholarly engagement with using TAM in medical education. Although the TAM has been mostly used as a survey instrument, it can also be adapted as a qualitative research framework to analyze data. This systematic review provides a foundation for future research to understand the factors influencing users' acceptance of technology, especially in medical education.

医学教育中的技术接受模式:系统回顾。
背景:随着技术在医学教育中的应用越来越多,需要一个框架来评估学习者和教育者对这些技术的接受程度。在这种情况下,技术接受模型(TAM)提供了一个有价值的理论框架,提供了对影响用户接受和采用技术的决定因素的见解。目的:系统地综述医学教育中应用TAM的研究成果。方法:于2024年2月使用PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta - analysis)方法对Embase、MEDLINE、PsycINFO、PubMed和Web of Science数据库进行电子文献检索,共检索到680篇论文。在消除重复并适用排除标准后,总共保留了39条。为了评估研究的质量,我们计算了医学教育研究质量工具评分,并对每个分析进行了定性分析。结果:TAM在医学教育中的研究始于2010年,截至2016年,该模型的应用相对较少。大多数研究是定量的,将TAM作为一种调查工具进行操作,但它也被用作定性数据分析的研究框架。结构方程模型、描述性分析和相关分析是研究中最常用的数据分析方法。电子学习和移动学习是主要的学习干预措施,但有迹象表明,新的学习技术,如增强现实、虚拟现实和3D打印正在研究中。结论:研究结果表明,在医学教育中使用TAM的学术参与正在扩大。虽然TAM主要被用作一种调查工具,但它也可以作为一种定性研究框架来分析数据。本系统综述为未来研究了解影响用户接受技术的因素,特别是在医学教育方面提供了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Education
JMIR Medical Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信