Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Saur March 15, 2024

Big Data Analytics Implementation and Practices in Medical Institute Libraries of Pakistan

  • Zakria , Rubina Bhatti , Khurshid Ahmad ORCID logo and Saeed Ullah Jan EMAIL logo
From the journal Libri

Abstract

The aim of this research was to analyze the contemporary practices of Big Data Analytics (BDA) in medical libraries of Pakistan and to explore ways for its implementation in these libraries. A cross-sectional study was carried out among medical librarians in Pakistan by using a Modified Technology Acceptance Model (MTAM) model, with collected data analyzed using Smart-PLS. The results revealed that lack of resources, technical expertise, and some other factors were significant hurdles in smooth implementation of BDA. It is concluded that the perception of medical librarians about adoption of BDA is very encouraging, which resultantly will improve the quality of healthcare services in the country.

1 Introduction

The effects of information and communication technology (ICT) and the rise of the digital age have stimulated the creation of a vast array of digital items in different parts of the world (Ahmad et al. 2019). In this digital age, there is an information flood and explosion since data is being produced at an exponential rate because of the development of the internet, mobile technology, sensors, and cloud computing (Giannakis et al. 2019). Over the past two decades, big data has been extensively addressed in a variety of sectors (Djafri et al. 2018), however, until now, experts have been unable to agree on a single definition of big data. It is unclear what amount of data will be considered big; nonetheless, some data scientists have indicated that big data (BD) has data in the Exabyte range, while others have discussed zettabytes/yottabytes (Anna and Mannan 2020). Various specialists have discussed the same concept based on their unique points of view and facts, leading to big data being defined as “high-volume, high-velocity, and/or high-variety information assets that necessitate innovative and cost-effective analyzing data methods to facilitate decision making and future predictions” (Zhang et al. 2018). Elsewhere, the subject of who initially created the term “Big Data” has also been contested. According to reports, John Mashey invented the term “Big Data” during a table discussion at Silicon Graphics In-charge (SGI) in the mid 1990s (Diebold et al. 2012). However, some experts believe Michael Cox and David Ellsworth invented the term Big Data in 1997 at an IEEE conference (Wang et al. 2018).

Big data can be categorized into three categories: volume, velocity, and diversity (Gandomi and Haider 2015). According to Kubick: “Big data has been used in data sets, and these data sets have become very large. The use of traditional database management systems has been incapacitated. Their data sets are larger than the ability of common software tools and storage systems to collect, store, manage, and process data at a reasonable time” (Kubick 2012).

Similarly, Halamka (2014) declared, “Big Data analytics (BDA) mean an organization’s ability to fully leverage its digital assets, which collectively include a large amount of data and more.” Herland (2019) also suggested that new technologies should be applied to the health sector to reduce the gap between patients and doctors. By implementing modern technology in the health sector, patients will get proper treatment at a minimal cost (Islam et al. 2019). Elsewhere, Teets and Goldner (2013) have said that library data and big data are inextricably linked, with rising library materials/items contributing to big data.

Library professionals recognize the significance of BDA in library operations (Zhan and Tan 2020). As a result, Ambigavathi and Sridharan (2018) claimed that BDA is bringing substantial changes in the ease with which data may be transformed into important insights. Libraries have been impacted by BD in two ways: first, the system’s capacity and operational needs are overwhelming due to the large volume, speed of the concerned resources, and selection. Second, because BDA methodologies and algorithms are complex procedures, BDA is entirely an IT-based endeavor (Kamupunga and Chunting 2019). To implement these unavoidable changes in current libraries, they need be turned into library 4.0, which means a watchful library that can assess massive amounts of data and give customers the required information in the shortest period of time (Anna and Mannan 2020). Furthermore, Noh (2015) explained that Library 4.0 means a library that has the ability to handle BD for better use. This is the primary responsibility of library professionals, to analyze the existing data of libraries for the purpose of achieving and fulfilling the institutional strategic goals (Islam et al. 2020).

In this study, a medical institute is defined as any institution that provides health-related programs such as Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS), Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS), Nursing, Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT), and Homoeopathy, among others. It is also affiliated with a medical university recognized by the country’s national medical council/commission. The Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC), now known as the Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC), is the certifying organization for medical institutes in Pakistan. In Pakistan, medical libraries refer to libraries housed at medical institutions and teaching hospitals. In the country, there are 369 medical institutes and teaching hospitals (PMDC 2019).

Medical library users save lives. Requiring up-to-date, accurate, and relevant resources to meet their everyday information needs (Ebenezer 1993), medical librarians can use BDA to deliver information to concerned consumers in a very organized manner based on their needs (El-Seoud et al. 2017). Similarly, Islam et al. (2019) claimed that BDA can also be used to provide more effective information to health practitioners, educators, students, researchers, and paramedical workers. The primary goal of this research is to assess the level of understanding, usage, and applicability of BDA in Pakistani medical libraries. Efforts have also been undertaken to identify the present practices, requisite skills, and capacities of these institutions’ medical librarians.

Due to the emergence of modern technologies, the roles and approaches of library professionals have changed significantly, with Anna and Mannan (2020) stating that medical library practitioners are now dealing with a wide range of huge data practices. The researchers have tried to assess the possible implementation of the BDA in medical library centers in the country.

The following are the research objectives of the current study:

  1. To determine the degree to which medical librarians perceive ease of use of BDA in medical libraries of Pakistan.

  2. To identify the perception of medical librarians about the usefulness of BDA to improve their job performance.

  3. To identify the Behavioral Intention (BI) of medical librarians.

  4. To determine the skills of these librarians towards applying for BDA.

  5. To explore the current practices of Big Data Analytics in these medical institutes.

  6. To evaluate the performance of medical librarians.

In the medical library, BDA is an effective tool used to manage past and present data for easy access and use. Using this study, we aim to regulate the level of understanding, current skills, and capabilities of medical librarians at these institutions. Its findings will be a valuable resource for medical librarians, healthcare researchers, high level individuals of health departments, and policymakers associated with the medical field in Pakistan, and their implementation will help improve the existing situation of medical libraries. By providing the latest and required information to medical stakeholders, we can prevent diseases, thereby supporting the establishment of a healthy and prosperous Pakistan.

2 Literature Review

The notion of “Big Data” is not new; however, its definition is constantly changing due to the needs at any moment in time. Ward and Barker (2013) stated that there are almost as many definitions as the number of people you ask. Various scientists have defined it in different ways, but Big Data (BD) can be compared to a collection of items whose size, velocity, kind, and complexity mean that one has to adopt and discover new software and hardware setups to effectively analyze, store, and visualize the data (Liu et al. 2018). Digital data, in all formats and sizes, has been growing at astounding rates since the National Security Agency (NSA) reported over a decade ago that the internet was processing 1826 Petabytes of data daily (Jarvis 2013). Silva et al. (2019) described Big Data as a 3Vs model, namely volume, variety, and velocity. Nevertheless, another definition of BD given by IBM is widely accepted as it altered the 3Vs into a 4Vs model by incorporating veracity as the fourth V of any Big Data Model (Gandomi and Haider 2015).

BDA refers to the technology and processes used to find, store, transfer, analyze, and visualize large amounts of unstructured and structured data (Erevelles, Fukawa, and Swayn 2016). Similarly, Manyika (2011) stated that Big Data analytics might enhance the global economy by being actively used in a variety of fields. BDA can be used to improve efficacy and efficiency, and can be defined as a collection of data management and analytical methodologies and skills for managing massive (Terabytes and Exabytes) and miscellaneous data sets. Furthermore, the BDA framework requires modern data storage, data management, data analysis, and visualization technologies (Chen et al. 2012). Tebboune et al. (2016) stated that BDA has created a paradigm shift in the area of scientific data retrieval after overcoming several problems such as data capture, management, storage, analysis, and visualization.

3 Materials and Methods

3.1 Theoretical Framework of the Study

The theoretical framework is the creation of prevailing theories in relevant literature which have already been utilized, tested, and published by other researchers (Kivunja 2018). The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is considered a theoretical framework that is widely used in elucidating an individual’s acceptance of modern technology or an information system (Weerasinghe 2017). Many researchers have developed various theories and models to explain users’ perceptions about the acceptance of modern technology in their workstations. Among these are: the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen 1977), the TAM (Davis 1989), the Combined TAM & TPB (Taylor and Todd 1995), the theory of Planned Behavior, the Model of PC Utilization (MPCU) (Thompson et al. 1991), Social Cognitive Theory, the Motivational Model (Davis 1993), the Information System Success Model, the innovation diffusion theory, and the Unified Theory of Technology Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Theories of Information System (IS) denote users’ approval and utilize the modern technology as TAM (Soon et al. 2016). TAM adopts the theory of Reasoned Action model developed by Ajzen (Fishbein and Ajzen 1977), and its extended form is the Unified Acceptance Model and Use of Technology (UTAUT). According to Davis (1989), TAM indicates the adopter’s perception of the IT system’s usefulness and ease of use to decide the user’s approach to adopting technology. Several past studies related with behavioral objectives and usage of IT have used the Technology Acceptance Model (Cheung and Vogel 2013; Lee et al. 2011). Kim (2006) has rightly reported that the TAM holds a unique and vital position among all these theories and models. It has been widely used to investigate user acceptance of various technologies in institutions and organizations, such as enterprise resource planning (Amoako-Gyampah and Salam 2004), consumer relationship administration (Wu and Wu 2005), cloud computing (Gangwar et al. 2015), Software as a Service (Wu et al. 2011), and data warehousing (Wixom and Todd 2005).

TAM has two major constructs: perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEoU) (Venkatesh and Davis 2000). These determinants explain users’ willingness to accept modern technology. PU indicates the prospect that the performance and outcome of an organization can be developed by embracing a specific information system. The second aspect of TAM is PEoU which shows that the adopter of this system thinks it will not require extra effort to run it (Tang and Chen 2011).

3.2 Proposed Framework

Based on the reviewed literature and study of different theories and models about the technology acceptance model, the researcher has developed the following conceptual model and hypotheses. The current study is based on TAM, considering its importance and unique role among the technology acceptance models as given in Figure 1.

Figure 1: 
Technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis 1989).
Figure 1:

Technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis 1989).

3.2.1 Perceived Ease of Use (PEoU)

According to several academics, ease of use means the degree to which a person anticipates finding it simple to utilize a particular information system (Davis 1989). Indeed, with this in mind, organizational performance can be enhanced with the help of easy and effortless processes (Brock and Khan 2017). Davis (1989, n.p.) has also defined Perceived Ease of Use as “the degree of ease involved when using an information system.” Likewise, Soon et al. (2016) explained that ease in utilizing the new technology will pave the ways for users to accept this; using an information system free of effort will increase the organizational performance (Brock and Khan 2017; Venkatesh and Davis 2000). Shin and Bohlin (2020) detailed that BDA may produce benefits for various types of organizations, such as cutting costs, managing and controlling risk factors, and facilitating the process of informed decisions.

H1:

Perceived ease of use (PEoU) has a positive impact on perceived usefulness (PU) (Davis 1989).

H2:

There is a positive impact of Perceived Ease of Use (PEoU) on Behavioral Intention (BI).

3.2.2 Perceived Usefulness (PU)

PU is one of the outside forces affecting TAM. PU measures how strongly a person thinks that utilizing modern technology would enhance their ability to accomplish their work (Al-Gahtani 2001; Davis 1993). Wu et al. (2017) stated that PU is a basic motivator and the most frequently used variable for technology adoption. Similarly, PU can be explained as whether a person considers that by utilizing the modern system their job performance will be enhanced (Brock and Khan 2017). According to the reviewed literature, there is a positive significant impact of PU on BI, BDA skills, and current practices (Ambak et al. 2016; Soon, Lee, and Boursier 2016; Wu and Chen 2017). Similarly, the PU influences the skills and work experience in an accounting virtual learning environment (Herrador-Alcaide and Hernández-Solís 2017). Based on the reviewed literature the following hypotheses have been developed:

H3A:

There is a significant positive impact of PU on BI.

H3B:

PU has a positive impact on BDA skills.

H3C:

There is a positive relationship between PU and current practices of BDA.

3.2.3 Behavioral Intention (BI)

The amount to which a person has made conscious plans to conduct or not perform some defined future behavior is referred to as behavioral intention (BI) (Budu et al. 2018). Esteves and Curto (2013) explained that BI intends some definite future behavior. The reviewed literature has produced evidence of a positive relationship between PU and BI which has been measured in different fields (Ambak et al. 2016; Wu and Chen 2017).

H4:

There is a positive relationship between BI and BDA skills.

3.3 BDA Skills of Medical Librarians

Capabilities and skills are two main components for achieving the goals of perceived usefulness (PU) (Pipitwanichakarn and Wongtada 2019). Ullah and Anwar (2013) rightly reported that skills and awareness of modern technology are now essential for library professionals to provide required information to their users in minimal time. Elsewhere, Ahmad, JianMing, and Rafi (2019) articulated that there is a strong correlation between the competencies of library professionals and the required skills for applying BDA in these academic library centers.

H5:

There is a positive relationship between BDA skills and current practices of BDA in medical libraries.

3.4 Current Practices of BDA in Libraries

Islam et al. (2020) described that the concept of BD is a supportive tool for upgrading libraries and their infrastructure to deliver better services to library centers and community patrons. The identification of current practices of BDA in medical institute libraries is necessary to achieve the determinant of perceived usefulness. A positive impact of BDA skills on current practices was found in some studies (Richards 2017). Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H6:

There is a strong relationship of current practices and performance/actual use.

4 Research Method

The current study follows the Positivist research paradigm, which employs a quantitative research design. In Pakistan, there were 369 medical institutes and teaching hospitals (PMDC 2019), with data obtained from these healthcare institutes’ library staff using a data gathering tool. The questionnaire was created using current literature in the relevant fields, which was sent to two BDA specialists for validation. The questionnaire’s validity and reliability were further tested using the Smart Partial Least Square (PLS) measurement model, which demonstrated high reliability and validity by fulfilling the essential threshold. The questionnaire used five Likert scales, with the items for the measured variables adapted from the pertinent literature. In the first case, a single phase quantitative research strategy was employed to collect data from respondents, namely library professionals from medical institutes and affiliated teaching hospitals, using a questionnaire. The data gathering tool was made available to responders through social media, personal visits, posts, and Google Docs. Furthermore, the researcher expanded the facility to clear the respondents’ ambiguity via cell phones discovered when filling out the questionnaires. The country had 369 medical institutes and teaching hospitals, and the respondents provided 256 responses out of the entire population. The questionnaire survey data was analyzed using the SPSS twenty-sixth version and Partial Least Squares (PLS-4). For hypothesis validation and data analysis, PLS software was employed.

5 Results

5.1 Measurement Model (Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity)

The convergent validity, shown in Table 1, evaluates the link between the latent variables and their items. The Cronbach’s Alpha, Rho, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extract (AVE) tests are used to assess convergent validity (Ahmed and Suliman 2020). Cronbach’s Alpha has a cutoff value of 0.07, and it is critical that a model be tested or used only if its Cronbach’s Alpha value is greater than 0.07 (Ahmed and Suliman 2020; Chung et al. 2009). The AVE was also used to look for inconsistencies between the items and the latent variable. Cronbach’s alpha values for the variables indicated in Table 1 are greater than 0.07, indicating that they match the needed condition. Similarly, the composite reliability also meets the required criterion as its value is more than 0.7 (Straub 1989). Furthermore, the AVE values of the model also meet the threshold value of 0.55 (Raza et al. 2020). The above values of different sections of the measurement model indicate that the proposed model’s convergent validity is supported.

Table 1:

Convergent validity.

Constructs Cronbach’s Alpha rho_A Composite Reliability AVE
PEOU 0.825 0.829 0.884 0.655
PU 0.923 0.924 0.942 0.766
BI 0.952 0.953 0.958 0.675
Skills 0.957 0.957 0.962 0.677
CP 0.919 0.921 0.940 0.757
Performance 0.919 0.920 0.939 0.755
  1. Note: PEOU, Perceived Ease of Use; PU, Perceived Usefulness; BI, Behavioral Intention; Skill, BDA skills; CP, Current Practices; Performance, Performance/Actual Use.

5.2 Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity deals with the latent variables and their items to examine differences among them. It is the second part of the measurement model which is mainly based on three main criteria: the Farnell and Larcker criterion, cross loading, and HTMT. According to the Farnell and Larcker criterion, the square root of AVE must be greater than the correlation between the construct and the model’s other constructs. After reviewing Tables 2, 3, and 4, discriminant validity was estimated. Table 2 demonstrates that all of the diagonal values are the square root of AVE, which is more significant than the correlation between the specified components and so fits the required criterion (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Furthermore, Table 3 shows that all of the items are positively linked with their respective determinants, and the cross-loading difference is greater than the previously indicated requirement, i.e. 0.1 (Qazi et al. 2020; Raza and Hanif 2013). Finally, in Table 4, HTMT analysis can be seen, which likewise meets the specified condition of construct values being smaller than 0.85 (Henseler et al. 2015; Raza et al. 2020). The measuring model, which includes convergent and discriminant validity, is validated. Next, the structural model will be studied in order to test hypotheses and discover relationships among the determinants.

Table 2:

Fornell and Larcker criterion.

BI CP PEOU Performance Skills PU
BI 0.822
CP 0.670 0.87
PEOU 0.514 0.526 0.81
Performance 0.643 0.724 0.417 0.869
Skills 0.811 0.675 0.494 0.671 0.823
PU 0.820 0.643 0.564 0.637 0.753 0.875
  1. Note: The square root of the AVE is shown by the diagonal elements (bold).

Table 3:

Indicator items cross loading.

Variables PEoU PU BI Skills CP Performance
PEoU_1 0.792
PEoU_2 0.852
PEoU_3 0.824
PEoU_4 0.768
PU_1 0.903
PU_2 0.885
PU_3 0.866
PU_4 0.845
PU_5 0.875
BI_1 0.796
BI_2 0.818
BI_3 0.833
BI_4 0.858
BI_5 0.851
BI_6 0.856
BI_7 0.820
BI_8 0.780
BI_9 0.842
BI_10 0.778
BI_11 0.802
Skills_1 0.842
Skills_2 0.799
Skills_3 0.828
Skills_4 0.854
Skills_5 0.792
Skills_6 0.828
SKills_7 0.820
Skills_8 0.816
Skills_9 0.857
Skills_10 0.786
Skills_11 0.843
Skills_12 0.803
CP_1 0.875
CP_2 0.880
CP_3 0.890
CP_4 0.886
CP_5 0.817
Performance_1 0.864
Performance_2 0.842
Performance_3 0.849
Performance_4 0.887
Performance_5 0.905
Table 4:

Heterotrait and Monotrait (HTMT).

BI CP PEoU PU Performance Skills
BI
CP 0.716
PEoU 0.576 0.600
PU 0.889 0.697 0.641
Performance 0.686 0.786 0.475 0.691
Skills 0.848 0.717 0.551 0.799 0.714

5.3 Structural Model and Testing of Hypotheses

Non parametric bootstrapping was applied for the purpose of path coefficients in the structural model as shown in Table 5. In said table, the P-values and T-values were examined during analysis. It was observed that the PEoU has a significant effect on PU as the P-value is 0.00 < 0.05 at 95 % significant level and the T-value is 9.948 > 1.96 (H1 supported). Perceived ease of use does not impact behavioral intention as the P-value is 0.430 > 0.05 at 95 % significant level and the T-value is 1.176 < 1.96 (H2 not supported). Similarly, perceived usefulness has a positive impact on behavioral intention as the P-value is 0.00 < 0.05 at 95 % significant level and the t-Value is 17.528 > 1.96 (H3A supported). Perceived usefulness has strong relationship with skills as the P-value is 0.027 < 0.05 at 95 % significant level and the T-value is 1.932 < 1.96 (H3B supported). Furthermore, there is a positive relationship between PU and current practices as the P-value is 0.00 < 0.05 at 95 % significant level and the T-value is 3.345 > 1.96 (H3C Supported). As far as H4 is concerned, there is positive impact of behavioral intention on skills as the P-value is 0.00 < 0.05 at 95 % significant level and the T-value is 5.833 > 1.96 (H4 supported). In case of H5, there is a positive relationship of BDA skills and current practices as the P-value is 0.00 < 0.05 at 95 % significant level and the T-value is 4.405 > 1.96 (H5 supported). Finally, current practices positively impact the performances as the P-value is 0.00 < 0.05 at 95 % significant level and the T-value is 18.343 > 1.96 (H6 supported).

Table 5:

Path coefficient for direct effect.

Hypotheses Paths β value T values P values Results
H1 PEoU → PU 0.564 9.948 0.000 Significant
H2 PEoU → BI 0.064 0.176 0.430 In-significant
H3A PU → BI 0.799 17.528 0.000 Significant
H3B PU → skills 0.249 1.932 0.027 Significant
H3C PU → CP 0.312 3.345 0.000 Significant
H4 BI → skills 0.603 5.833 0.000 Significant
H5 Skills → CP 0.440 4.405 0.000 Significant
H6 CP → performance 0.724 18.343 0.000 Significant
  1. Note: Threshold values. **p < 0.05, *T > 1.96.

5.4 The R-Square Value

In Table 6, the R-square values give the dependent variables predictive power and show the percent (%) of variance explained by a particular variable or variables. The R-square values were perceived usefulness (0.318), behavioral intention (0.700), current practices (0.498), performance (0.524), and skills (0.677). The behavioral intention can be explained to 70 % and current practices 49 % by the variable considered. Furthermore, the R-square values of perceived usefulness, performance, and skills can be respectively explained as 31 %, 52 %, and 67 %.

Table 6:

R-square values.

Constructs R-square R-square Adjusted
PU 0.318 0.315
BI 0.700 0.697
Skills 0.677 0.675
CP 0.498 0.494
Performance 0.524 0.522

6 Discussions

The importance of Big Data analytics implementation in healthcare units and medical institutes’ libraries are increasing day by day (Ambigavathi and Sridharan 2018). Compared to the role of the past librarians, current library professionals have many challenges to face. Now they are working in the digital era, they are supposed to act like data scientists, data curators, and digital service providers (Ahmad et al. 2019). The results showed excellent validity and reliability of the instrument; both the convergent and discriminant validity were tested and proved excellent. Tables 2, 3, and 4 provide the values of the validity and reliability of the tool, which meet the required criterion in all aspects (Fornell and Larcker 1981). The results showed that most of the medical libraries and librarians performed BDA practices but in a disorganized form. The core reasons for these jumbled practices included lack of knowledge and skills, non-availability of modern equipment, and administrative issues. There were total of six main latent variables, namely, PEoU, PU, BI, Skills, Current Practices, and Performance/Actual Use. Table 2 shows all the measured/latent variables of the study in hand, with TAM used as the base for the current study (Venkatesh and Davis 2000). The same was modified and some new variables were added to the model with the help of literature in the field of BDA as given in Figure 2. The researchers also went through the structure model of the SEM to examine the impact and relationship of a number of variables, details of which are given in Table 5. For said purpose, eight hypotheses were developed and tested, with the results revealing a positive impact of PEoU on PU, which has a similar result of the study conducted by Nnaji et al. (2020) on adoption of modern technology. This indicates that medical librarians perceived the use of BDA to be an easy task and helpful in enhancing the standard of work at their libraries. The policymakers of health departments and administration of these medical institutes must encourage these medical librarians and extend all facilities in this regard. PEoU has less impact on the BI as the P-value of said hypothesis does not meet the required criterion (Anna and Mannan 2020) as shown in Table 5. It indicates that the perception of medical library practitioners about the ease of use does not affect their behavioral intention towards the implementation of BDA in these medical libraries. The result of the study conducted on the adoption of Wearable Sensing Devices (WSDs) is adverse to the current study where the PEoU has a significantly positive effect on BI (Nnaji et al. 2020). Furthermore, the structure model also indicated that PU has a positive impact on BI as its P and T values meet the threshold values. In similar studies conducted by Davis (1989), Soon et al. (2016), and Cheng (2019), the same results were observed in the adoption and implementation of modern technology. These medical institutes and teaching hospitals should sensitize their medical librarians regarding the benefits of these modern technologies to ensure that they will adopt this modern information system. Similarly, PU influenced the skills of these medical library professionals as proved by the structural model of SEM by meeting the required criterion. This demonstrated that PU and BDA skills are correlated and the skills of medical library practitioners are a strong predictor for the adoption of BDA in these medical institutes. The same relationship was reported in yet another study where the PU has influenced both the skills and work experience (Herrador-Alcaide and Hernández-Solís 2017). PU has a significantly positive relationship with CP, with the P and T values (P = 0.000, T = 3.345) of the structural model showing the result which met the required criterion. Another study, conducted on PU, PEoU, and User Acceptance of IT, had the same result (Davis 1989). Moreover, this indicates that current practices are performing the vital role to compel these medical librarians to adopt this new information technology. In the same vein, the BI has a strong positive impact on skills (P = 000.0, T = 5.833). The result indicated that the BI is a strong predictor of BDA skills as compared to PU. It is obvious from the analysis that the intention to adopt BDA in these institutes has a strong correlation with the BDA skills of these medical library practitioners. The same impact can be found in yet another study where a strong positive impact of BI on skills was found (Adetoro et al. 2017). Furthermore, the analysis also showed that BDA Skills have a positive impact on current practices (PU) (P = 0.000, T = 4.405). It can be elaborated that the BDA skills of these medical librarians is a strong predictor for the implementation and practices of BDA in these information centers. The policymakers and high level individuals of these institutions should arrange training workshops and seminars for their library professionals to enhance their BDA skills which will ultimately lead to the smooth implementation of BDA in these medical institutes. The findings of the current study are in line with a study conducted by Richards (2017) where a positive impact of skills on current practices was found. The study in hand also illustrated that there is a strong positive impact of current practices on performance/actual use. According to the coefficient analysis with P = 0.000 and T = 18.343 as given in Table 5, the current practice (CP) is a strong predictor for the actual use of a modern information system. The administration of these medical schools should focus on present BDA practices and provide facilities to increase the standard of these practices, as these will help prepare the way for subsequent BDA technology implementation in these institutes’ and teaching hospitals’ libraries (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 2: 
Proposed model.
Figure 2:

Proposed model.

Figure 3: 
Measurement model.
Figure 3:

Measurement model.

Figure 4: 
Structural model.
Figure 4:

Structural model.

7 Conclusion

BDA’s importance has been recognized in many areas of life, including commerce, companies, business, government organizations, healthcare units, libraries, and information centers. Based on the literature review and data analysis, it is clear that BDA implementation and practices in medical and teaching hospital libraries are urgently needed. The health department and administration of medical institutes and teaching hospitals should play a critical role in providing all types of infrastructure and BDA technology training, as well as removing all barriers to the smooth implementation of this new information technology. The current study deals with an emerging issue and covers a research gap in the field of modern technology implementation and practices in the form of BDA at the country’s medical institutes and teaching hospitals. This research will help to raise awareness and create a roadmap for medical librarians and policymakers to utilize this technology in their respective medical libraries. Furthermore, the current study has offered a full authentic model for examining people’s intentions towards the implementation of BDA technologies in many domains. Overall, this study adds significantly to existing research on BDA implementation and practices. It relates to the current condition of BDA implementation and practice in medical libraries, as well as the loopholes and obstacles to the smooth application of BDA. BDA practices in these medical facilities can increase the utility of library services, resulting in the best services being provided to lifesavers and other library users. The use of SEM-PLS and hypothesis testing showed that the libraries of medical institutes and affiliated teaching hospitals in Pakistan provide a conducive environment for the adoption and use of BDA technologies. Additionally, the library staff at these libraries have highly good behavioral intentions with regard to the deployment of this information system. In a nutshell, the execution of this new information system in these medical libraries requires the help and cooperation of top management and high-level individuals of these institutions.


Corresponding author: Dr. Saeed Ullah Jan, 422550 Department of Library and Information Science, Khushal Khan Khattak University Karak , Karak, Pakistan, E-mail:

References

Adetoro, J. A., S. A. Oyebade, M. A. Oladejo, and J. Azi. 2017. “Learning on the Move: The Behavioural Intentions of Nigerian Students with Disabilities.” In Paper presented at the ICEL 2017-Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on e-Learning.Search in Google Scholar

Ahmad, K., Z. JianMing, and M. Rafi. 2019. “Librarian’s Perspective for the Implementation of Big Data Analytics in Libraries on the Bases of Lean-Startup Model.” Digital Library Perspectives 36 (1): 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-04-2019-0016.Search in Google Scholar

Ahmed, S. H., and S. M. Suliman. 2020. “A Structure Equation Model of Indicators Driving BIM Adoption in the Bahraini Construction Industry.” Construction Innovation 20 (1): 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-06-2019-0048.Search in Google Scholar

Al-Gahtani, S. 2001. “The Applicability of TAM Outside North America: An Empirical Test in the United Kingdom.” Information Resources Management Journal 14 (3): 37–46. https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2001070104.Search in Google Scholar

Ambak, K., N. E. Harun, N. Rosli, B. D. Daniel, J. Prasetijo, and M. Ezree. 2016. “Driver Intention to Use Electric Cars Using Technology Acceptance Model.” ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 11 (3): 1524–8. https://www.arpnjournals.org/jeas/research_papers/rp_2016/jeas_0216_3529.pdf (accessed January 23, 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Ambigavathi, M., and D. Sridharan. 2018. “Big Data Analytics in Healthcare.” Paper presented at the 2018 Tenth International Conference on Advanced Computing (ICoAC).10.1109/ICoAC44903.2018.8939061Search in Google Scholar

Amoako-Gyampah, K., and A. F. Salam. 2004. “An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model in an ERP Implementation Environment.” Information & Management 41 (6): 731–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.08.010.Search in Google Scholar

Anna, N. E. V., and E. F. Mannan. 2020. “Big Data Adoption in Academic Libraries: A Literature Review.” Library Hi Tech News 37 (4): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-11-2019-0079.Search in Google Scholar

Brock, V., and H. U. Khan. 2017. “Big Data Analytics: Does Organizational Factor Matters Impact Technology Acceptance?” Journal of Big Data 4 (1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-017-0081-8.Search in Google Scholar

Budu, K. W. A., M. Yinping, and K. K. Mireku. 2018. “Investigating the Effect of Behavioral Intention on E-Learning Systems Usage: Empirical Study on Tertiary Education Institutions in Ghana.” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 9 (3): 201–26. https://doi.org/10.2478/mjss-2018-0062.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, H., R. H. Chiang, and V. C. Storey. 2012. “Business Intelligence and Analytics: From Big Data to Big Impact.” MIS Quarterly 36 (4): 1165–188. https://doi.org/10.2307/41703503.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, E. W. 2019. “Choosing between the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).” Educational Technology Research & Development 67 (1): 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9598-6.Search in Google Scholar

Cheung, R., and D. Vogel. 2013. “Predicting User Acceptance of Collaborative Technologies: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning.” Computers & Education 63: 160–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.003.Search in Google Scholar

Chung, B., M. J. Skibniewski, and Y. H. Kwak. 2009. “Developing ERP Systems Success Model for the Construction Industry.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 135 (3): 207–16. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:3(207).10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:3(207)Search in Google Scholar

Davis, F.D. 1989. “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.” MIS Quarterly 13 (3): 319–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.Search in Google Scholar

Davis, F. D. 1993. “User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts.” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 38 (3): 475–87. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022.Search in Google Scholar

Diebold, F. X., X. Cheng, S. Diebold, D. Foster, M. Halperin, S. Lohr, and M. Pospiech. 2012. “A Personal Perspective on the Origin (S) and Development of “Big Data”: The Phenomenon, the Term, and the Discipline.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2202843.Search in Google Scholar

Djafri, L., D. A. Bensaber, and R. Adjoudj. 2018. “Big Data Analytics for Prediction: Parallel Processing of the Big Learning Base with the Possibility of Improving the Final Result of the Prediction.” Information Discovery and Delivery 46 (3): 147–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-02-2018-0002.Search in Google Scholar

Ebenezer, C. 1993. A User Survey Conducted at the Medical Library of the University of Limburg at Maastricht. Maastricht: University of Limburg (Unpublished report).Search in Google Scholar

El-Seoud, S. A., H. F. El-Sofany, M. Abdelfattah, and R. Mohamed. 2017. “Big Data and Cloud Computing: Trends and Challenges.” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies 11 (2): 34–52. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v11i2.6561.Search in Google Scholar

Erevelles, S., N. Fukawa, and L. Swayne. 2016. “Big Data Consumer Analytics and the Transformation of Marketing.” Journal of Business Research 69 (2): 897–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.001.Search in Google Scholar

Esteves, J., and J. Curto. 2013. “A Risk and Benefits Behavioral Model to Assess Intentions to Adopt Big Data.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning: ICICKM 2013.10.37380/jisib.v3i3.74Search in Google Scholar

Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1977. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Search in Google Scholar

Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.Search in Google Scholar

Gandomi, A., and M. Haider. 2015. “Beyond the Hype: Big Data Concepts, Methods, and Analytics.” International Journal of Information Management 35 (2): 137–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.007.Search in Google Scholar

Gangwar, H., H. Date, and R. Ramaswamy. 2015. “Understanding Determinants of Cloud Computing Adoption Using an Integrated TAM-TOE Model.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 28 (1): 107–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-08-2013-0065.Search in Google Scholar

Giannakis, M., K. Spanaki, and R. Dubey. 2019. “A Cloud-Based Supply Chain Management System: Effects on Supply Chain Responsiveness.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 32 (4): 585–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-05-2018-0106.Search in Google Scholar

Halamka, J. D. 2014. “Early Experiences with Big Data at an Academic Medical Center.” Health Affairs 33 (7): 1132–8. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0031.Search in Google Scholar

Henseler, J., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2015. “A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43 (1): 115–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.Search in Google Scholar

Herland, M. 2019. Big Data Analytics and Engineering for Medicare Fraud Detection. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University.Search in Google Scholar

Herrador-Alcaide, T. C., and M. Hernández-Solís. 2017. “Numerical-Technological Skills and Work Experience in the Perceived Usefulness in an Accounting Virtual Learning Environment.” Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET 16 (3): 116–31. http://www.tojet.net/articles/v16i3/16311.pdf (accessed January 20, 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Islam, A. A., K. Ahmad, M. Rafi, and Z. JianMing. 2020. “Performance-based Evaluation of Academic Libraries in the Big Data Era.” Journal of Information Science 47 (4): 458–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520918516.Search in Google Scholar

Islam, M. S., D. Liu, K. Wang, P. Zhou, L. Yu, and D. Wu. 2019. “A Case Study of HealthCare Platform Using Big Data Analytics and Machine Learning.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2019 3rd High Performance Computing and Cluster Technologies Conference.10.1145/3341069.3342980Search in Google Scholar

Jarvis, J. 2013. “How Much Data the NSA Really Gets.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/13/nsa-internet-traffic-surveillance (accessed January 23, 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Kamupunga, W., and Y. Chunting. 2019. “Application of Big Data in Libraries.” International Journal of Computer Application 178 (16): 34–8. https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2019918955.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, J. A. 2006. “Toward an Understanding of Web‐based Subscription Database Acceptance.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (13): 1715–728. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20355.Search in Google Scholar

Kivunja, C. 2018. “Distinguishing between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework: A Systematic Review of Lessons from the Field.” International Journal of Higher Education 7 (6): 44–53, https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v7n6p44.Search in Google Scholar

Kubick, W. R. 2012. “Big Data, Information and Meaning.” Applied Clinical Trials 21 (2): 26. https://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/view/big-data-information-and-meaning (Accessed January 20, 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Y.-H., Y.-C. Hsieh, and C.-N. Hsu. 2011. “Adding Innovation Diffusion Theory to the Technology Acceptance Model: Supporting Employees’ Intentions to Use E-Learning Systems.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society 14 (4): 124–37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.14.4.124 (accessed January 20, 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Y., L. Yang, J. Sun, Y. Jiang, and J. Wang. 2018. “Collaborative Matrix Factorization Mechanism for Group Recommendation in Big Data-Based Library Systems.” Library Hi Tech 36 (3): 458–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2017-0121.Search in Google Scholar

Manyika, J. 2011. “Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition, and Productivity.” http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Technology_and_Innovation/Big_data_The_next_frontier_for_innovation (accessed January 23, 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Nnaji, C., I. Okpala, and I. Awolusi. 2020. “Wearable Sensing Devices: Potential Impact & Current Use for Incident Prevention.” Professional Safety 65 (4): 16–24. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2398594424/fulltext/EB89759A09F14FB7PQ (accessed January 20, 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Noh, Y. 2015. “Imagining Library 4.0: Creating a Model for Future Libraries.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (6): 786–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.08.020.Search in Google Scholar

Pipitwanichakarn, T., and N. Wongtada. 2019. “Leveraging the Technology Acceptance Model for Mobile Commerce Adoption under Distinct Stages of Adoption: A Case of Micro Businesses.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 33 (6): 1415–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-10-2018-0448.Search in Google Scholar

PMDC (Pakistan Medical and Dental Council). 2019. www.pmdc.org.pk (accessed September 22, 2020).Search in Google Scholar

Qazi, W., S. A. Raza, and K. A. Khan. 2020. “The Contradiction between Self-Protection and Self-Presentation on Knowledge Sharing Behaviour: Evidence from Higher Education Students in Pakistan.” International Journal of Knowledge and Learning 13 (3): 246–71. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKL.2020.109910.Search in Google Scholar

Raza, S. A., and N. Hanif. 2013. “Factors Affecting Internet Banking Adoption Among Internal and External Customers: A Case of Pakistan.” International Journal of Electronic Finance 7 (1): 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijef.2013.051746.Search in Google Scholar

Raza, S. A., A. Umer, M. A. Qureshi, and A. S. Dahri. 2020. “Internet Banking Service Quality, E-Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: The Modified E-SERVQUAL Model.” The TQM Journal 32 (6): 1443–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-02-2020-0019.Search in Google Scholar

Richards, G. 2017. Big Data and Analytics Applications in Government: Current Practices and Future Opportunities. Florida: CRC Press.10.4324/9781315153582Search in Google Scholar

Shin, D.-H., and E. Bohlin. 2020. “Demystifying Big Data: Anatomy of Big Data Developmental Process.” Telecommunications Policy 40: 837–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.03.007.Search in Google Scholar

Silva, B. N., M. Diyan, and K. Han. 2019. “Big Data Analytics.” In Deep Learning: Convergence to Big Data Analytics, Vol. 13–30. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-981-13-3459-7_2Search in Google Scholar

Soon, K., C. Lee, and P. Boursier. 2016. “A Study of the Determinants Affecting Adoption of Big Data Using Integrated Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) in Malaysia.” International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 14 (1): 17–47. https://serialsjournals.com/abstract/92616_2-kelly_wee_kheng_soon.pdf (accessed January 20, 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Straub, D. W. 1989. “Validating Instruments in MIS Research.” MIS Quarterly 13 (2): 147–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/248922.Search in Google Scholar

Tang, D., and L. Chen. 2011. “A Review of the Evolution of Research on Information Technology Acceptance Model.”In Paper presented at the 2011 International Conference on Business Management and Electronic Information.Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, S., and P. Todd. 1995. “Decomposition and Crossover Effects in the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Study of Consumer Adoption Intentions.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 12 (2): 137–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(94)00019-K.Search in Google Scholar

Tebboune, S., S. S. Nudurupati, R. Daley, and J. Hardman. 2016. “The Impact of Data Analytics on Decision Making Processes and Firm Performance.” In Performance Measurement Association Conference, 26 June 2016 - 29 June 2016. Edinburgh, UK. (Unpublished).Search in Google Scholar

Teets, M., and M. Goldner. 2013. “Libraries’ Role in Curating and Exposing Big Data.” Future Internet 5 (3): 429–38. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi5030429.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, R. L., C. A. Higgins, and J. M. Howell. 1991. “Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization.” MIS Quarterly 15 (1): 125–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/249443.Search in Google Scholar

Ullah, M., and M. A. Anwar. 2013. “Developing Competencies for Medical Librarians in Pakistan.” Health Information and Libraries Journal 30 (1): 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12008.Search in Google Scholar

Venkatesh, V., and F. D. Davis. 2000. “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies.” Management Science 46 (2): 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Y., L. Kung, and T. A. Byrd. 2018. “Big Data Analytics: Understanding Its Capabilities and Potential Benefits for Healthcare Organizations.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 126: 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.12.019.Search in Google Scholar

Ward, J. S., and A. Barker. 2013. Undefined by Data: A Survey of Big Data Definitions. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1309.5821.Search in Google Scholar

Weerasinghe, S. 2017. “Technology Acceptance Model in the Domains of LIS and Education: A Review of Selected Literature.” Library Philosophy & Practice 1582. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1582.Search in Google Scholar

Wixom, B. H., and P. A. Todd. 2005. “A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance.” Information Systems Research 16 (1): 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0042.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, B., and X. Chen. 2017. “Continuance Intention to Use MOOCs: Integrating the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Task Technology Fit (TTF) Model.” Computers in Human Behavior 67: 221–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, C.-S., F. F. Cheng, D. C. Yen, and Y.-W. Huang. 2011. “User Acceptance of Wireless Technology in Organizations: A Comparison of Alternative Models.” Computer Standards & Interfaces 33 (1): 50–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2010.03.002.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, I.-L., and K.-W. Wu. 2005. “A Hybrid Technology Acceptance Approach for Exploring E-CRM Adoption in Organizations.” Behaviour & Information Technology 24 (4): 303–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929042000320027.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, J., H. Li, L. Liu, and H. Zheng. 2017. “Adoption of Big Data and Analytics in Mobile Healthcare Market: An Economic Perspective.” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 22: 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2017.02.002.Search in Google Scholar

Zhan, Y., and K. H. Tan. 2020. “An Analytic Infrastructure for Harvesting Big Data to Enhance Supply Chain Performance.” European Journal of Operational Research 281 (3): 559–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.09.018.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, L., H. Wang, Q. Li, M.-H. Zhao, and Q.-M. Zhan. 2018. “Big Data and Medical Research in China.” BMJ 360: 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5910.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-08-31
Accepted: 2023-11-23
Published Online: 2024-03-15
Published in Print: 2024-03-25

© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 1.5.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/libri-2023-0084/html
Scroll to top button