BACKGROUND: Artificial pancreas (AP) systems are currently an active field of diabetes research. This pilot study examined the attitudes of AP clinical trial participants toward future acceptance of the technology, having gained firsthand experience. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: After possible influencers of AP technology adoption were considered, a 34-question questionnaire was developed. The survey assessed current treatment satisfaction, dimensions of clinical trial participant motivation, and variables of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Forty-seven subjects were contacted to complete the survey. The reliability of the survey scales was tested using Cronbach's α. The relationship of the factors to the likelihood of AP technology adoption was explored using regression analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-six subjects (76.6%) completed the survey. Of the respondents, 86.1% were either highly likely or likely to adopt the technology once available. Reliability analysis of the survey dimensions revealed good internal consistency, with scores of >0.7 for current treatment satisfaction, convenience (motivation), personal health benefit (motivation), perceived ease of use (TAM), and perceived usefulness (TAM). Linear modeling showed that future acceptance of the AP was significantly associated with TAM and the motivation variables of convenience plus the individual item benefit to others (R(2)=0.26, P=0.05). When insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor use were added, the model significance improved (R(2)=0.37, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated that individuals with direct AP technology experience expressed high likelihood of future acceptance. Results support the factors of personal benefit, convenience, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use as reliable scales that suggest system adoption in this highly motivated patient population.
BACKGROUND:Artificial pancreas (AP) systems are currently an active field of diabetes research. This pilot study examined the attitudes of AP clinical trial participants toward future acceptance of the technology, having gained firsthand experience. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: After possible influencers of AP technology adoption were considered, a 34-question questionnaire was developed. The survey assessed current treatment satisfaction, dimensions of clinical trial participant motivation, and variables of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Forty-seven subjects were contacted to complete the survey. The reliability of the survey scales was tested using Cronbach's α. The relationship of the factors to the likelihood of AP technology adoption was explored using regression analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-six subjects (76.6%) completed the survey. Of the respondents, 86.1% were either highly likely or likely to adopt the technology once available. Reliability analysis of the survey dimensions revealed good internal consistency, with scores of >0.7 for current treatment satisfaction, convenience (motivation), personal health benefit (motivation), perceived ease of use (TAM), and perceived usefulness (TAM). Linear modeling showed that future acceptance of the AP was significantly associated with TAM and the motivation variables of convenience plus the individual item benefit to others (R(2)=0.26, P=0.05). When insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor use were added, the model significance improved (R(2)=0.37, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated that individuals with direct AP technology experience expressed high likelihood of future acceptance. Results support the factors of personal benefit, convenience, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use as reliable scales that suggest system adoption in this highly motivated patient population.
Authors: Daniela Bruttomesso; Anne Farret; Silvana Costa; Maria Cristina Marescotti; Monica Vettore; Angelo Avogaro; Antonio Tiengo; Chiara Dalla Man; Jerome Place; Andrea Facchinetti; Stefania Guerra; Lalo Magni; Giuseppe De Nicolao; Claudio Cobelli; Eric Renard; Alberto Maran Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2009-09-01
Authors: Wendy C Bevier; Howard C Zisser; Lois Jovanovic; Daniel A Finan; Cesar C Palerm; Dale E Seborg; Francis J Doyle Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2008-07
Authors: Rebecca A Harvey; Youqing Wang; Benyamin Grosman; Matthew W Percival; Wendy Bevier; Daniel A Finan; Howard Zisser; Dale E Seborg; Lois Jovanovic; Francis J Doyle; Eyal Dassau Journal: IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag Date: 2010 Mar-Apr
Authors: Cesar C Palerm; María Rodríguez-Fernández; Wendy C Bevier; Howard Zisser; Julio R Banga; Lois Jovanovic; Francis J Doyle Journal: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2006
Authors: Rebecca A Harvey; Eyal Dassau; Wendy C Bevier; Dale E Seborg; Lois Jovanovič; Francis J Doyle; Howard C Zisser Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Eyal Dassau; Howard Zisser; Rebecca A Harvey; Matthew W Percival; Benyamin Grosman; Wendy Bevier; Eran Atlas; Shahar Miller; Revital Nimri; Lois Jovanovic; Francis J Doyle Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Molly L Tanenbaum; Esti Iturralde; Sarah J Hanes; Sakinah C Suttiratana; Jodie M Ambrosino; Trang T Ly; David M Maahs; Diana Naranjo; Natalie Walders-Abramson; Stuart A Weinzimer; Bruce A Buckingham; Korey K Hood Journal: J Health Psychol Date: 2017-07-12
Authors: Katharine D Barnard; Korey K Hood; Jill Weissberg-Benchell; Chris Aldred; Nick Oliver; Lori Laffel Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: J Kropff; J DeJong; S Del Favero; J Place; M Messori; B Coestier; A Farret; F Boscari; S Galasso; A Avogaro; D Bruttomesso; C Cobelli; E Renard; L Magni; J H DeVries Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Francis J Doyle; Lauren M Huyett; Joon Bok Lee; Howard C Zisser; David Kerr; Eyal Dassau Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 19.112