| Submission to first decision
(The average time from manuscript submission to desk rejection, direct rejection/acceptance or assignment to the first editor) Note: For manuscripts that fully comply with the journal template. However, this timeframe does not apply to manuscripts with formatting or guideline deficiencies. If a manuscript is returned to the authors for corrections, the administrative review process will restart from the re-submission date. |
3 weeks |
|---|---|
| Submission to decision after review (For papers that are sent to review, the average time from submission to receipt of first editor decision) | 6 weeks |
| Submission to final decision (The average time from manuscript submission to the final editorial decision) | 16 weeks |
| Submission to publication (The average time from acceptance to publication. Manuscript published in early view are also included in this calculation) | 24 weeks |
ACTA Pharmaceutica Sciencia
2026 , Vol 64 , Num 2
Technology acceptance in community pharmacists: Bridging the gap between pharmacists and digital technologies
1 Istinye University, Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Management, Istanbul, Türkiye2 Bursa Technical University, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Department of Data Science and Analytics, Bursa, Türkiye
DOI : 10.23893/1307-2080.APS64016 Viewed : 838 - Downloaded : 400 This study aimed to explore the factors influencing community pharmacists" adoption of digital technologies. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 879 pharmacists in Istanbul, using an extended Technology Acceptance Model. The key findings revealed that anxiety significantly hindered adoption, negatively affecting both perceived ease of use (peou) (?0.148) and facilitating conditions (fc) (?0.320 total, ?0.270 direct). Peou was the strongest positive predictor of behavioral intention (bi), with total and direct effects of 0.241 and 0.142, respectively, highlighting the importance of user-friendly technology design. Fc played a dual role, positively influencing training (0.247) and subjective norms (sn) (0.355), but negatively affecting self-efficacy (se) (?0.193 total, ?0.172 direct). Notably, sn negatively affected se (?0.124), suggesting that social pressure may act as a barrier rather than a facilitator. These findings highlight the necessity for comprehensive strategies addressing not only technical usability but also organizational support and social dynamics. Keywords : Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), community pharmacists, digital technology, pharmacy practice