Use of Mobile Applications for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Safety Screening: An Acceptability Study Utilizing Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71637/tnhj.v25i3.1132Keywords:
acceptability, MRI safety, Technology Acceptance Model, mobile application, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, Behavioural Intention to UseAbstract
Background: This study evaluates the acceptability for Magneto Safe mobile application as a digital solution in MRI safety screening procedures using TAM Model.
Methods: A cross-sectional survey included 257 medical doctors from two tertiary hospitals located on the east coast of Malaysia who had prior experience using the traditional paper form in MRI safety screening when requesting MRI procedures. The modified TAM questionnaire was used to evaluate users' acceptability of the mobile application. This study measured the Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), and Behavioural Intention to Use (IU) the Magneto Safe mobile application, and identify the factors associated to IU.
Results: Most respondents scored more than 80% in the 5-point Likert scale for 14 questions in PU, PEOU, and IU. After regression analysis, PU and PEOU both significantly associated with IU. The majority (86.4%) of respondents favour mobile applications over traditional paper-based pre-screening forms.
Conclusion: These findings conclude that the acceptability of Magneto Safe as an alternative to traditional paper form in the era of information technology in clinical settings.
Downloads
References
1. Kwan-Hoong N, Ahmad AC, Nizam M, Abdullah B. Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Health Effects and Safety. Electromagn Fields Our Heal [Internet]. 2003;(October):1–15. Available from: http://wwwlive.who.int/entity/peh-emf/meetings/archive/en/paper04ng.pdf
2. Shellock FG, Crues J V. MR Procedures: Biologic Effects, Safety, and Patient Care. Radiology [Internet]. 2004;232(3):635–52. Available from: http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2323030830
3. Hoe J. Quality service in radiology. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2007;3(3).
4. O. AlRowaili M, Ahmed AE, Areabi HA. Factors associated with No-Shows and rescheduling MRI appointments. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2016;16(1):1–7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1927-z
5. Shellock FG. MRIsafety.com [Internet]. [cited 2025 Jan 8]. Available from: http://www.mrisafety.com
6. Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform [Internet]. 2010;43(1):159–72. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002
7. Chismar WG, Wiley-Patton S. Test of the technology acceptance model for the internet in pediatrics. Proceedings AMIA Symp [Internet]. 2002;(May):155–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12463806%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC2244480
8. Mohd Latip HF, Omar AH, Jing TM, Shahrom A. A Questionnaire-based Approach on Technology Acceptance Model for Integrated Multiple Ankle Technology Device on Patient Psychology. Sains Humanika. 2017;9(3–2):9–14.
9. Abu-Dalbouh HM. A questionnaire approach based on the technology acceptance model for mobile tracking on patient progress applications. J Comput Sci. 2013;9(6):763–70.
10. Chauhan S, Jaiswal M. A meta-analysis of e-health applications acceptance. J Enterp Inf Manag. 2017;30(2):295–319.
11. Z. Suradi. Testing Technology Acceptance Model ( TAM ) in Malaysian Environment T. BITWORLD Conf. 2001;(January 2001):1–8.
12. Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User
Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319–40.
13. Cheah WH, Mat Jusoh N, Aung MMT, Ab Ghani A, Mohd Amin Rebuan H. Mobile Technology in Medicine: Development and Validation of an Adapted System Usability Scale (SUS) Questionnaire and Modified Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to Evaluate User Experience and Acceptability of a Mobile Application in MRI Safety Screening. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2023;33(1):36–45.
14. Kutner MH, Nachtsheim, C. J. N, J., & Li W. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Vol. 29, Journal of Quality Technology. 2004. 233–233 p.
15. Holzinger A, Kosec P, Schwantzer G, Debevc M, Hofmann-Wellenhof R, Frühauf J. Design and development of a mobile computer application to reengineer workflows in the hospital and the methodology to evaluate its effectiveness. J Biomed Inform [Internet]. 2011;44(6):968–77. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2011.07.003
16. Ventola CL. mobile devices and Apps for Health Care Professionals. Pharm Ther. 2014;39(5):356–64.
17. Bates DW, Teich JM, Lee J, Seger D, Kuperman GJ, Ma’Luf N, et al. The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2000;6(4):313–21.
18. Thomairy NA, Mummaneni M, Alsalamah S, Moussa N, Coustasse A. Use of Smartphones in Hospitals. The Health Care Manager. 2015;34(4):297–307.
19. Pande T, Saravu K, Temesgen Z, Seyoum A, Rai S, Rao R, et al. Evaluating clinicians’ user experience and acceptability of LearnTB, a smartphone application for tuberculosis in India. mHealth. 2017;3:30–30.
20. Bates DW. Using information technologies to prevent medication errors. Br Med J [Internet]. 2000;320(March). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117776/pdf/788.pdf
21. Ketikidis P, Dimitrovski T, Lazuras L, Bath PA. Acceptance of health information technology in health professionals: An application of the revised technology acceptance model. Health Informatics J. 2012;18(2):124–34.
22. Alharbi S, Drew S. Using the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding Academics’ Behavioural Intention to Use Learning Management Systems. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl. 2014;5(1).
23. Lee AT, Ramasamy RK, Subbarao A. Understanding Psychosocial Barriers to Healthcare Technology Adoption: A Review of TAM Technology Acceptance Model and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and UTAUT Frameworks. Healthc. 2025;13(3).
24. Gordon WJ, Landman A, Zhang H, Bates DW. Beyond validation: getting health apps into clinical practice. npj Digit Med [Internet]. 2020;3(1). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0212-z
25. Yuanyuan Zhao, Sazlina S, Rokhani FZ, Su J. The expectations and acceptability of a smart nursing home model among Chinese elderly people : A mixed methods study protocol. 2021;1–19. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255865
26. Khan R, Khan S, Almohaimeed HM, Almars AI, Pari B. Utilization, challenges, and training needs of digital health technologies: Perspectives from healthcare professionals. Int J Med Inform [Internet]. 2025;197(September 2024):105833. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2025.105833
27. Alzghaibi H. Healthcare Practitioners’ Perceptions of mHealth Application Barriers: Challenges to Adoption and Strategies for Enhancing Digital Health Integration. Healthc. 2025;13(5).
28. Brobbey KO. The use of mobile applications among healthcare professionals for patient care in Accra. 2024; Available from: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3840596/v1
29. Gagnon MP, Orruño E, Asua J, Abdeljelil A Ben, Emparanza J. Using a Modified Technology Acceptance Model to Evaluate Healthcare Professionals’ Adoption of a New Telemonitoring System. Telemed e-Health [Internet]. 2012;18(1):54–9. Available from: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/tmj.2011.0066
30. Lee M, Mahmood ABS Bin, Lee ES, Smith HE, Car LT. Smartphone and Mobile App Use Among Physicians in Clinical Practice: Scoping Review. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2023;11:1–14.
31. Kushniruk AW, Patel VL. Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems. J Biomed Inform. 2004;37(1):56–76.
32. Kabakus AK, Bahcekapili E, Ayaz A. The effect of digital literacy on technology acceptance: An evaluation on administrative staff in higher education. J Inf Sci. 2023;
33. Sayaf AM, Alamri MM, Alqahtani MA, Alrahmi WM. Factors Influencing University Students’ Adoption of Digital Learning Technology in Teaching and Learning. Sustain. 2022;14(1):1–18.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Azizah Ab Ghani, Wai-Hun Cheah , Myat Moe Thwe Aung, Norhasiza Mat Jusoh , Husbani Mohd Amin Rebuan , Mohd Salami Ibrahim
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Journal is owned, published and copyrighted by the Nigerian Medical Association, River state Branch. The copyright of papers published are vested in the journal and the publisher. In line with our open access policy and the Creative Commons Attribution License policy authors are allowed to share their work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.
The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations. While the advice and information in this journal are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
TNHJ also supports open access archiving of articles published in the journal after three months of publication. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g, in institutional repositories or on their website) within the stated period, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access). All requests for permission for open access archiving outside this period should be sent to the editor via email to editor@tnhjph.com.
