Determinants of E-government Adoption: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

The adoption of E-government has significant benefits for both citizens and governments. The objectives of this study were to (1) find out the common areas investigated in the empirical research landscape on E-government adoption from 2015 to 2020, as well as (2) the areas that need more focus for research. The systematic literature review methodology was used in this study. Fifty-five empirical articles published during the 2015-2020 period in journals were extracted from the Scopus database. The review's article selection and findings are published following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. According to the findings, the perceived usefulness, perceived easiness, trust, and perceived risk of Technology Acceptance Models (TAM) and performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model have all been extensively studied. They are the determinants for E-government adoption. Additionally, citizen awareness, cost of services, citizen satisfaction, digital inequality, and individual motivators are determinants of E-government adoption. The research implications and future research agendas are also provided.

Efficiency and Performance of Microfinance Institutions: A Systematic Literature Review

“…The analysis consists of an appraisal, performance, scientific performance analysis, and a collection of scientific maps (Cobo et al, 2012;Priyashantha, De Alwis, et al, 2022b). A scientific map study evaluates a research project's composition, development, and key players (Noyons et al, 1999;Priyashantha & Dilhani, 2022a). Various information, particularly for each article, is used to create maps called bibliometric networks (Callon et al, 1983).…”

“…The PRISMA mandates reporting the bias assessment in results synthesis due to the absence of pertinent results. (Andrlić et al, 2023;Priyashantha, 2022;Priyashantha, Dahanayake, et al, 2022;Priyashantha, De Alwis, et al, 2022b;Priyashantha et al, 2021aPriyashantha et al, , 2021bPriyashantha & Dilhani, 2022b) Thus, the systematic assessment was not used for this task; however, systematic and objective software utensils were followed to avoid bias in reporting the findings. Additionally, after doing a cooccurrence analysis of the keywords, the authors independently cross-checked the corresponding findings of each keyword.…”

Disruptive technologies for human resource management: a conceptual framework development and research agenda

“…Further, two independent colleagues of the author assessed each article manually against the inclusion criteria one, two, three and four mentioned in Table 1. For eligibility checking of the articles, the assessment of methodological reporting is essential (Meline, 2006; Priyashantha et al ., 2021; Priyashantha and Dilhani, 2022). As an inclusion criterion, five included the empirical research that employed quantitative methodologies, the articles that followed the quantitative research methodology were included in the study, and others were excluded.…”