5 ,

(),
2-5 2009
"Athens Hilton",

TOY

:

- New Public
Management.


,


1980
.


(
)




20


1.

(


)

2.

(


)

3.

() (

)


, ,
:
1 :
(cash based accounting system)

2 : ,
,

(modified cash basis)

(modified
accrual basis)

3 :
(accrual accounting)



USA

OECD, 1993; 2003; Abernethy, 2007;

Cobb1994

UK

(Mellett, 2002; and Lapsley and

Pallot, 2000; and Lapsley and
Oldfield,2001)

Australia

(Potter, 2002)

New Zealand

(Lapsley and Pallot, 2000; and Pallot,

2001)

Scandinavian countries

(Pettersen, 2001; and Johnsen et al.,

2001),

Netherlands

(ter Bogt, 2001)

Belgium

(Christiaens, 1999)

Spain

(Torres and Pina, 2001)

Italy

(Panozzo, 2000, Pessina, 2007)

2003
.. 146/2003.

.. 146

(
) .

.. 146

01/01/2005
01/01/2006

()

2008
132 .
. 132

54,

41%.

(Chi-square : 2.009; p = 0.08)

 -
Regional Health
Authorities
()

Total
Number
of
Hospitals

No of Hospitals % of Hospitals
answered the
answered
questionnair
the
e
questionnai
re

1st Attiki

27

11

(40.7%)

2nd Peiraia- Aigaio

20

(40%)

3rd Makedonia

17

10

(59%)

4th Anat. Makedonia &

Thraki

15

(33%)

5th Thessalia - Sterea Ellada

13

(31%)

6th Peloponnisos - Ionia Nisia

Dytiki Ellada

31

13

(42%)

7th Kriti

(42%)

132

55

(41%)

Total number

(N = 54)

45
(83.3%)

9
(16.7%)

54
(100%)

(N = 54)

10
(18.5%)

44
(81.5%)

54
(100%)

Mean

St. deviation

Ranking

4.00

1.118

(
)

3.89

1.269

3.78

0.972

()

3.56

0.882

3.44

1.333

()

3.00

1.425

2.63

1.323

2.33

1.414

*Notes: scale 1= strongly Disagree to 5 = strongly Agree

Lucus 1975; Robey 1979; McGowan and

Klammer 1997; Balley and Pearson 1983; Ives et all,
1983; Doll and Torkzadeh 1988,

.

Shields (1995) : if users attitudes

toward a system are unfavourable, it is likely that they
will not accept it..and concludes that.from the
practitioners perspective, users satisfaction, as an
attitude towards the system change, may be the most
important and widely used success factor because it will
drive changes in decision making and use patterns

one sample t-test
:
Hypothesis :

.



(
= 3.84, st =1, 224) 0.01
(t = 4.62).

A
(%)

1*

Mean

St
deviation

0.0%

0.0%

8.9%

55.6%

35.6%

4.27

0.618

0.0%

2.2%

11.1%

44.4%

42.2%

4.25

0.751

4.4%

2.2%

15.6%

42.2%

35.6%

4.02

1.011

2.2%

13.9%

6.7%

37.8%

40.0%

3.98

1.108

*Notes: measured on scale 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Ranking

A (.)



,

2.2%

13.3%

26.7%

24.5%

28.9%

3.62

1.173

6.7%

17.8%

26.7%

24.4%

24.4%

3.42

1.234

20.0%

8.9%

15.6%

31.1%

24.4%

3.31

1.459

13.3%

22.2%

28.9%

28.9%

6.7%

2.93

1.156

A
62,2%

,
.
Percentage of Hospitals

(N=45)

1*

Mean

St deviation

40,0%

22,2%

28,9%

4,4%

4,4%

2,11

1,133

(18)

(10)

(13)

(2)

(2)

*Notes: measured on scale 1 = very difficult to 5 = Very easy.


Percentage of Hospitals
Problems

1*

Mean

St. deviation

RANKING

8,9%

51,1%

40,0%

2,31

0,633

&

15,6%

37,8%

46,7%

2,31

0,733

20,0%

37,8%

42,2%

2,22

0,765

20,0%

37,8%

42,2%

2,22

0,765

13,3%

53,3%

33,3%

2,20

0,661

20,0%

48,9%

31,1%

2,11

0,714

22,2%

46,7%

31,1%

2,09

0,733

42,2%

48,9%

8,9%

1,67

0,640

57,8%

37,8%

4,4%

1,62

0,716

*Notes: measured on scale 1= no problems encountered to 3 = significant problems encountered

 -

Number of
Hospitals
Years

Frequency

(%)

15.6

19

42.2

11.1

8.9

6.7

4.4

2.2

4.4

4.4

Total

45

100

MSc/PhD

Total

57.8%

39.2%

2.2 %

100 %

Low

Medium

High

(N=45)

Christiaens, 1999 and 2001:

.
Evans and Patton, 1983; Robbins and Austin, 1986
:

.
Luder, 1990; Cohen and Kaimenakis, 2007 :


.

 -

Number of Hospitals
Hospitals size

Frequency

100

12

26.7

100 350

17

37.8

350 500

8.9

500

12

26.7

Total

45

100


Variables
(N = 45)

-0.505**

0.371*

-0.678**

-0.135

0.310*

1.000

0.672**

0.804**

1.000

-0.410*

0.495**

-0.574**

-0.054

0.157

-0.468*

1.000

-0.357*

0.611**

0.063

-0.091

-0.354*

1.000

-0.259

0.023

-0.186

-0.506**

0.371*

0.493**

-0.750**

-0.690**

0.633**

-0.266

1.000

0.004

-0.111

-0.135

-0.063

0.068

0.023

0.014

1.000

0.116

0.242

-0,124

-0.191

-0.122

0.110

1.000

0.306*

Notes : The correlations above the diagonal correspond to Spearman two-tailed correlations. The correlations below the diagonal
correspond to Pearson two-tailed correlations.
* * Significance at 1% level (two-tailed); * Significance at 5% level (2-tailed)


!!!