medical identity theft, palm vein authentication: the manager's perspective

Doctoral Study Oral DefenseProposal Defense

Medical Identity Theft, Palm Vein AuthenticationThe Manager’s Perspective

Supervisory Committee

Chair: Dr. Nikunja Swain

2nd Committee Member: Dr. Anthony Lolas

URR: Dr. Raghu Korrapati

2 Oral Defense

Section 1: Background

3 Oral Defense

Medical Identity Theft

???

Palm Vein Authentication

???

Section 1: Background (cont.)

4 Oral Defense

Investments in IT held in high regard

Biometrics customers purchase

solutions not devices

Rise in medical identity

theft

Financial burden

Safety challenges

Funding consideration at https://www.gofundme.com/CruzCerdaPhD2016

Section 1: Problem Statement bullets/citations

Hook: The FBI, cyber actors, and health care systems

Anchor: In 2014 - 2.32 million victims, 21.7% increase, 481,657 new cases

General Problem: Information theft

Specific Problem: Uncertaintysurrounding the benefits of PVA

5 Oral Defense

Section 1: Purpose Statement

The focus of this quantitative correlational

study will be to understand the

effectiveness of PVA technology as perceived by healthcare managers

and doctors.

Impact of this issue, project managers and

challenges and barriers of implementation.

More effective/efficient implementation of PVA

systemImproved understanding and use of technology

6 Oral Defense

Section 1: Purpose Statement – Social Impact (3)

1. Consumers/Patients

2. Suppliers/Management, Doctors, Providers

3. Insurers

7 Oral Defense

Section 1: Purpose Statement – Social Impact Summary

Cost of medical fraud

decreases

Positive Social

Change

8 Oral Defense

Section 1: Research Questions 1, 2

9 Oral Defense

RQ 1: adoption of PVA system and

perceived usefulness

RQ 2: adoption of PVA system and

ease of use


10 Oral Defense

RQ 3: adoption of a PVA system and

awareness


peer influence


11 Oral Defense

Research Question 5: usage of a PVA system

and resource facilitating conditions

Research Question 6:adoption of a PVA

system and technology facilitating conditions


12 Oral Defense


self efficacy

RQ 8: adoption (usage) of a PVA

system and security


13 Oral Defense

RQ 9: adoption (usage) of a PVA

system and compatibility


relative advantage

Section 1: Research Question 11

14 Oral Defense

RQ 11: adoption of a PVA system

and complexity

Section 1: Hypotheses for RQs 1, 2

15 Oral Defense

• H1o: There is no statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and perceived usefulness.

• H1a: There is a statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and perceived usefulness.

• H2o : There is no statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and ease of use.

• H2a: There is a statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and ease of use.


16 Oral Defense

• H3o: There is no statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and awareness.

• H3a: There is a statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and awareness.

• H4o : There is no statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and peer influence.

• H4a: There is a statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and peer influence.


17 Oral Defense

• H5o: There is no statistically significant relationship between the usage of a PVA system and resource facilitating conditions.

• H5a: There is a statistically significant relationship between the usage of a PVA system and resource facilitating conditions.

• H6o : There is no statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and technology facilitating conditions.

• H6a: There is a statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and technology facilitating conditions.


18 Oral Defense

• H7o: There is no statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and self efficacy.

• H7a: There is a statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and self efficacy.

• H8o : There is no statistically significant relationship between the adoption (usage) of a PVA system and security.

• H8a: There is a statistically significant relationship between the adoption (usage) of a PVA system and security.


19 Oral Defense

• H9o: There is no statistically significant relationship between the adoption (usage) of a PVA system and compatibility.

• H9a: There is a statistically significant relationship between the adoption (usage) of a PVA system and compatibility.

• H10o : There is no statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and relative advantage.

• H10a: There is a statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and relative advantage.

Section 1: Hypotheses for RQ 11

20 Oral Defense

• H11o : There is no statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and complexity.

• H11a: There is a statistically significant relationship between the adoption of a PVA system and complexity.

Section 1: Theoretical framework

• TRA• TAM• MM• TPB•C-TAM-TPB•MPCU• IDT• SCT

• 70% BI, 50% AU

Unified Theory of Acceptance

and Use of Technology

Theory authored by Venkatesh,

Morris, Davis, & Davis

This theory was developed in

2003

Incorporating eight competing

models to explain user

acceptance of IT

21 Oral Defense

Section 1: Theoretical framework (cont.)

Comprehensive model to examine

factors that contribute to the

successful adoption of a new technology

system

The theory interfaces with the proposed study by exploring• Four determinants of

user acceptance of IT (adoption, usage)• Performance

expectancy• Effort expectancy• Social influence• Facilitating conditions

22 Oral Defense

Section 1: Theoretical framework (cont.)

23 Oral Defense

Section 2: Method/Design chosen to help add new insights

Quantitative Study

Explore Variables

Questionnaire Survey Methodology

To Examine Technology Adoption Issues

24 Oral Defense

Section 2: Participants and sample size

Population

healthcare managers and doctors purposive sampling

Minimum sample size Parameters

spearman rho correlation

a priori power analysis

medium effect size 0.3 alpha 0.05 power 0.95

25 Oral Defense

Section 2: Data Source and Collection Technique Plans

26 Oral Defense

Section 2: Data Analysis Plan

• Exploratory investigation • Effect size• Demographic characteristics / occupational experiences

– Gender, Age, Highest level of education, years of professional experience, years of employment at present location, full time versus part-time

• Demographic characteristics / occupational experiences• Frequency and Percentages for categorically scaled variables• Range for continuously scaled variables

27 Oral Defense

Summary

Proposal

Alignment

Problem Statement

Purpose Statement

Research Questions

HypothesesTheoretical Framework

Method/Design of Study

Data Source

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Oral Defense28

Closing

Thank you Dr. Swain and Dr. Lolas

This concludes my proposal oral defense presentation. I would now like to invite your questions

29 Oral Defense

medical identity theft, palm vein authentication: the manager's perspective

Healthcare