Authors : Jude Iyke Nicholars

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/3r6sysbp

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/5ajcjs5v

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25oct1093

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : The successful implementation of Biometric Controlled Health Informatics is based upon end-user awareness and acceptance (World Health Organization, 2021). In Uganda, the national e-health strategy advocated for the adoption of Biometric Controlled Health Informatics to enhance hospital service delivery and data security (Ministry of Health, 2016). However, the integration of Biometric Controlled Health Informatics, a system designed to securely manage patient records and health workers' data, remains limited. Establishing the level of health workers' awareness is a critical step, as a lack of awareness and understanding can lead to resistance, improper use, and ultimately, the failure of such technological interventions (Nigam et al., 2022 & Venkatesh & Bala, 2008This study established awareness of Biometric Controlled Health Informatics among clinical and non-clinical health workers at Gulu and Soroti Regional Referral Hospitals, offering valuable insights to guide tailored implementation strategies for this innovative technology in Uganda's health system. Using a mixed methods approach that combined qualitative and quantitative techniques within one study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2023), the research provided a comprehensive understanding of the issue. The quantitative phase examined the relationship between health workers’ personality traits (independent variables) and their acceptance of biometric-controlled health informatics (dependent variable) through standardized tools: the Big Five Inventory (BFI) and a Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire. This enabled statistical analysis using correlation and multiple regression to measure the strength and direction of these relationships (Pallant, 2020). The sample included 244 health workers from Gulu (52.0%) and Soroti (48.0%) hospitals, with this balanced representation reducing potential institutional bias. Quantitative results showed that around 57% of participants had prior knowledge of biometric authentication systems, and about 56.6% had used biometric data—primarily fingerprint scanning for attendance monitoring. Qualitative findings revealed that while most non-technical staff recognized biometrics mainly as attendance tools, technical staff were more aware of their broader use in securing patient records. However, there was limited understanding of biometric applications beyond attendance, highlighting a need for enhanced training and awareness programs. Challenges such as technical glitches and perceptions of biometrics as controlling rather than enabling technology influenced levels of awareness and acceptance among health workers.

Keywords : Biometric, Health Informatics, TAM, Philosophy, Acceptance, Public Hospitals, Uganda.

References :

1. Addo. K., Agyepong., P.K (2024). Evaluating the Health Information system implementation and utilization in healthcare delivery. Health Informatics Journal 30(4). DOI: 10.1177/14604582241304705
2. Aditya, J. S., Boonyong, K. and Jutatip, S. (2011). Midwifes' Intentions regarding Use of Electronic Medical Records in Health Centres in Leback District. Banten Provice, Indonesia. Journal of Public Health and development Vol. 9 2011
3. Bahlol R., Hamed N., Hadi L. A, and Toomas T (2018). A Systematic Review of the Technology
4. Acceptance Model in Health Informatics: Appl Clin Inform. 2018 Jul; 9(3): 604–634. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1668091
5. Chen H. T., Aboozar E., Nadia D., Graham W.,  Stephen F., and Sabine K (2020). Effects of Electronic Health Record Implementation and Barriers to Adoption and Use: A Scoping Review and Qualitative Analysis of the Content: Published.10 (12): 327.: doi: 10.3390/life10120327
6. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018).  Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
8. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.  MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
9. DeVellis, R. F. (2017).  Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage publications.
10. Edward, D., Richard, L. and Jorden, A. (2019). Introduction to Psychology: Cummings is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License: Retrieved From: www.openpress.usask.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/personality-traits/
11. Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: principles and practices.  Health Services Research, 48(6 pt 2), 2134-2156.
12. Gay, B., & Weaver, S. (2011). Theory building and paradigms: A primer on the nuances of theory construction. American International journal of Contemporary Research, 1(2), 24-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14695812.2007.00349.x
13. Gelso, C. (2006). Applying theories to research: The interplay of theory and research in science.
14. In F. T. Leong & J. T. Austin (Eds.), The Psychology Research Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from http://www.sagereference.com/hdbk_psychrsch/Article_n32
15. Hamapa, A., Zulu, J.M., Khondowe, O.,Hangulu, L (2024). Healthcare workers’ perceptions and user experiences of biometric technology in the selected healthcare facilities in Zambia. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4577633/v1
16. Harlow, E. (2009). Contribution theoretical. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397.n89
17. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice.  Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20.
18. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102-138). Guilford Press.
19. JunHua, L., Lesley, P.W.L., Subhagata, C. & Pradeep, R. (2008). E-health Readiness Framework from Electronic Health Records Perspectives. Sydney. Australia
20. Kathrin, M. C., Allison, W. &Aziz S. (2010). Actor Network Theory and its Role in Understanding the Implementation of Information Technology development in Healthcare: Medical Informatics & Decision Making
21. Kempton, A. M. (2022). The digital is different: emergence and relationality in critical realist research.  Information and Organization, 32(2), 100408.
22. Kerlinger, R. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York, NY: Harper & Row..
23. Kempton, A. M. (2022).  The application of critical realism in information systems research. Palgrave Macmillan.
24. Manon, B. & Stéphane, B. (2008). Applying the technology acceptance Model to vr with people who are favorable to its use. Journal of Cyber Therapy & Rehabilitation Summer 2008, Volume 1, Virtual Reality. Medical lnstitute. University. Canada
25. Mason, J., Dave, R., Chatterjee, P., Graham-Allen, I., Esterline. A., Kaushik, R. (2020). An Investigation of Biometric Authentication in the Healthcare: Retrieved from: www.elsevier.com/journals/array/2590-0056/open-access-journal
26. Mingers, J. (2004). Realising information systems: Critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for information systems.  Information and Organization, 14(2), 87-103.
27. Ministry of Health - Uganda. (2016).  Uganda National eHealth Strategy 2017-2021. Retrieved  from https://health.go.ug/sites/default/files/National%20e_Health%20Strategy_0.pdf
28. Mogli, G.M. (2011). Role of Biometrics in Healthcare Privacy and Security Management System. Journal of Bio-Medical Informatics. Sri Lanka             
29. Muhaise, H., Kareyo, M., & Muwanga-Zake, J. W. F. (2019). Factors influencing the adoption of electronic health record systems in developing countries: A case of Uganda. Amer Acad Sci Res J Eng Technol Sci, 61(1), 160-6.
30. Nigam, D., Patel, S.N.,   Durai, P. M.,   Raj, V., Sinouvassane, A (2022).  Biometric Authentication for Intelligent and Privacy-Preserving Healthcare Systems. Journal of Healthcare Engineering2022(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1155/2022/1789996
31. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019).  Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
32. Sayer, A. (2000).  Realism and social science. Sage Publications.
33. Shorten, A., & Smith, J. (2017). Mixed methods research: Expanding the evidence base. *Evidence-Based Nursing, 20*(3), 74-75.
34. Stam, H. (2010a). Functionalism. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case study research. (pp. 410-413). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397.n152
35. Stam, H. (2010b). Theory. Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288.n458
36. Sutton, R., & Staw, B. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371-384. Retrieved from http://academic.udayton.edu/DianeSullivan/Independent%20Studies/Amber%20Peterink_SU08/Readings/Sutton%20%26%20Staw_1995_ASQ.pdf
37. Tan, W. and Yang, C. (2012). Personality Traits Predictors of Usage of Internet Services 2012 International Conference on Economic Business Innovation. Kainan University. Taiwan
38. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions.  Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
39. Vogt, W. P. (2005). Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology. (3rd ed.). SAGE. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412983907
40. Wacker, J. (1999). A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 16, 361-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00019-9
41. Whetten, D. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academic Management Review, 14, 490-495. Retrieved from http://marriottschool.net/emp/daw4/1989%20AMR%20Theory.pdf
42. Wilburn, L. and Chris, M. (2012). The lmpact of  Personality Traits on Smartphone Ownership and Use. International Journal of Business and and Social Sciences. VOl. 2. Retrived in January 2023. From: www.ijbesnet.com
43. World Health Organization. (2021).  Global patient safety action plan 2021-2030: towards eliminating avoidable harm in health care. World Health Organization.
44. Wynn Jr, D., & Williams, C. K. (2012). Principles for conducting critical realist case study  research in information systems.  MIS quarterly, 787-810.
45. Yogesh, M & Dennis, F. G. (1999). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to Account for Social Influence: Theoretical Bases and Empirical Validation. Proceedings of the 32^nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
46. Yogesh, M.J. and Karthikeyan. J. (2022) Health Informatics: Engaging Modern Healthcare  Units: A Brief Overview: Frontiers in Public Health 10:854688: DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2022.854688
47. Zhang, T. (2023). Critical realism: A critical evaluation. Social Epistemology, 37(1), 15-29.
48. Zhang, T. (2023). Philosophical foundations for mixed-methods inquiry in public health.  Health Research Methodology, 15(2), 45-60.