| Literature DB >> 23194420 |
José Asua1, Estibalitz Orruño, Eva Reviriego, Marie Pierre Gagnon.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A pilot experimentation of a telemonitoring system for chronic care patients is conducted in the Bilbao Primary Care Health Region (Basque Country, Spain). It seems important to understand the factors related to healthcare professionals' acceptance of this new technology in order to inform its extension to the whole healthcare system.This study aims to examine the psychosocial factors related to telemonitoring acceptance among healthcare professionals and to apply a theory-based instrument.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23194420 PMCID: PMC3520721 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-139
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 2.796
Figure 1Adapted theoretical model.
Internal consistency of theoretical dimensions
| Perceived usefulness | 11, 15, 19, 23, 27 and 32 | The use of the telemonitoring system (TMS) could help me to monitor my patients more rapidly | 0.96 |
| Perceived ease of use | 12, 16, 20, 24, 28 and 35 | I think that I could easily learn how to use the TMS | 0.91 |
| Compatibility | 14, 21, 29 and 34 | The use of the TMS may imply major changes in my clinical practice | 0.80† |
| Subjective norm | 17, 22, 26 and 31 | Most of my patients will welcome the fact that I use the TMS | 0.85 |
| Facilitators | 18, 30 and 36 | I think that my health centre has the necessary infrastructure to support my use of the TMS | 0.82 |
| Habit‡ | 9 | I have already used telemonitoring devices to monitor my patients | --- |
| Intention | 13, 25 and 33 | I have the intention to use the TMS when it becomes available in my health centre | 0.90 |
* See Supplementary file for the complete questionnaire.
† When the item 34 is dropped.
‡ The variable Habit was assessed using a single item. No Cronbach alpha was calculated.
Participants’ characteristics
| | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||||||
| Women | 209 | 78.0 | 124 | 94.7 | 75 | 61.5 | 10 | 66.7 |
| Men | 59 | 22.0 | 7 | 5.3 | 47 | 38.5 | 5 | 33.3 |
| Age | ||||||||
| <30 | 11 | 4.1 | 11 | 8.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 30-39 | 43 | 16.0 | 24 | 18.3 | 15 | 12.3 | 4 | 26.7 |
| 40-49 | 93 | 34.7 | 42 | 32.1 | 46 | 37.7 | 5 | 33.3 |
| 50-59 | 117 | 43.7 | 52 | 39.7 | 60 | 49.2 | 5 | 33.3 |
| >60 | 4 | 1.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 1 | 0.8 | 1 | 6.7 |
| Spoken language | ||||||||
| Castellano | 250 | 93.3 | 125 | 95.4 | 113 | 92.6 | 12 | 80.0 |
| Euskera | 18 | 6.7 | 6 | 4.6 | 9 | 7.4 | 3 | 20.0 |
| Years in clinical practice | 21.3 (SD=9.1) | 22.6 (SD=9.7) | 20.2 (SD=8.3) | 19.7 (SD=7.5) | ||||
| Highest educational grade | ||||||||
| 3-year certificate | 116 | 43.3 | 116 | 88.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| B.Sc. | 114 | 42.5 | 6 | 4.6 | 99 | 81.1 | 9 | 60.0 |
| M.Sc. | 18 | 6.7 | 8 | 6.1 | 9 | 7.4 | 1 | 6.7 |
| Ph.D. | 10 | 3.7 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4.9 | 4 | 26.7 |
| Other studies | 10 | 3.7 | 1 | 0.8 | 8 | 6.6 | 1 | 6.7 |
Descriptive analysis of the theoretical variables
| Mean | 4.70 | 5.07 | 4.85 | 4.68 | 5.08 | 4.86 |
| SD | 1.40 | 1.13 | 1.25 | 1.10 | 1.22 | 1.32 |
| Correlation with IU | 0.83* | 0.72* | 0.81* | 0.65* | 0.83* | 1.00* |
PU= Perceived usefulness SN= Subjective Norm.
PEU= Perceived ease of use FAC=Facilitators.
COM=Compatibility IU=Intention to use.
* Correlation significant at p = 0.01.
Results of the logistic regression: Original and Extended TAM
| Perceived usefulness | 5.28 | 3.14-10.01 | 0.000 |
| Perceived ease of use | 1.93 | 1.11-2.37 | 0.020 |
| Perceived usefulness | 2.65 | 1.15-6.12 | 0.022 |
| Perceived ease of use | 0.66 | 0.31-1.39 | 0.276 |
| Compatibility | 3.06 | 1.30-7.18 | 0.010 |
| Subjective Norm | 1.06 | 0.56-2.03 | 0.851 |
| Facilitators | 4.90 | 2.38-10.09 | 0.000 |
| Habit | 2.56 | 0.56-11.70 | 0.226 |
TAM=Technology Acceptance Model; OR: Odds Ratio; CI: confidence interval.
Nagelkerke R2 = 0.63 Nagelkerke R2 = 0.72.
Results of the logistic regression based on items from theoretical constructs
| 2.70 | 1.44-5.05 | 0.002 | |
| 2.36 | 1.20-4.62 | 0.013 | |
| 2.30 | 1.65-3.22 | 0.000 |
FAC=Facilitators; COM=Compability; OR: Odds Ratio; CI: confidence interval.
Nagelkerke R2 = 0.68.