| Literature DB >> 32624465 |
Marjan Askari1, Nicky Sabine Klaver1, Thimon Johannes van Gestel1, Joris van de Klundert1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing health service demand driven by the aging of the global population calls for the development of modes of health service delivery that are less human resource-intensive. Electronic health (eHealth) and medical apps are expected to play an important role in this development. Although evidence shows mobile medical apps might be effective in improving the care, self-management, self-efficacy, health-related behavior, and medication adherence of older adults, little is known about older adults' intention to use these technologies when needed, or the factors influencing this intention.Entities:
Keywords: Senior Technology Acceptance Model; adoption; elderly; intention to use; mHealth; medical apps; older adults
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32624465 PMCID: PMC7501579 DOI: 10.2196/18080
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Description of the included factors with an example statement and literature references.
| Factor (number of statements) | Operational definition | Example of a statement | References |
| Perceived usefulness (3) | The extent to which a person believes that using the medical app will improve his or her quality of life | Using medical apps for remote health care would make my life easier. | [ |
| Perceived ease of use (4) | The extent to which a person believes that using medical apps will be free of effort | It is easy to use medical apps for remote health care. | [ |
| Attitude toward use (4) | An individual’s positive or negative feelings or appraisal about using medical apps | Using medical apps for remote care would be a good idea. | [ |
| Subjective norm (3) | The person’s perception that most people who are important to them think they should or should not use medical apps | People who are important to me think that I should use medical apps. | [ |
| Sense of control (2) | The perceptions of internal and external constraints on using medical apps | Using medical apps for remote health care is entirely within my control. | [ |
| Feelings of anxiety (2) | An individual’s apprehension when he or she is faced with the possibility of using technology | I feel anxious to start using medical apps for remote health care. | [ |
| Personal innovativeness (4) | Personal tendency to innovate, or introduce something new or different | In general, I do not hesitate to try out new information technology. | [ |
| Social relationships (3) | An individual’s satisfaction with personal relationships and support from friends and family | I am satisfied with my personal relationships. | [ |
| Self-perceived effectiveness (2) | Judgment of one’s ability to use medical apps to accomplish a particular job or task | I could perform a task on a medical app if I have just the instruction manual for assistance. | [ |
| Service availability (3) | The obtainability and accessibility of medical apps | Medical apps for remote health care are always available whenever I need them. | [ |
| Facilities (2) | Objective factors in the environment that can make technology usage easy. Included indicators are basic knowledge and available help | I have the knowledge needed to use medical apps. | [ |
| Finance (1) | Having the financial resources to make technology usage easy | My financial situation stops me from using medical apps. | [ |
Baseline characteristics of the study cohort.
| Characteristics | Participants (n=364) | |
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 74.9 (7.1) | |
| Sex (male), n (%) | 155 (42.6) | |
|
| ||
|
| No education | 9 (2.5) |
|
| Lower education | 57 (15.7) |
|
| Intermediate education | 160 (44.0) |
|
| Higher education | 125 (34.3) |
|
| ||
|
| Married | 190 (52.2) |
|
| Divorced | 51 (14.0) |
|
| Widowed | 89 (24.5) |
|
| Single | 22 (6.0) |
|
| Living with partner | 8 (2.2) |
|
| ||
|
| Living independently, alone | 129 (35.4) |
|
| Living independently, with others | 161 (44.2) |
|
| Senior living facility, alone | 34 (9.3) |
|
| Senior living facility, with others | 35 (9.6) |
| Identification of Seniors at Risk – Primary Care questionnaire score, mean (SD) | 1.4 (1.7) | |
| Assessment of Activities of Daily Living, Self-Care, and Independence score, mean (SD) | 14.6 (2.3) | |
| Quality of life, mean (SD)a | 7.6 (7.0) | |
| Prior experience with internet, n (%) | 310 (85.2) | |
| Prior experience with medical apps, n (%) | 58 (15.9) | |
| Intention to use, n (%) | 183 (50.3) | |
aThis measure is scored on a scale from 0 to 10.
Cronbach α of the technology acceptance factors.
| Factorsa | Cronbach α |
| Perceived usefulness (n=3) | 0.922 |
| Perceived ease of use (n=4) | 0.950 |
| Attitude toward use (n=4) | 0.955 |
| Subjective norm (n=3) | 0.974 |
| Sense of control (n=2) | 0.890 |
| Intention to use (n=3) | 0.969 |
| Feelings of anxiety (n=2) | 0.913 |
| Personal innovativeness (n=4) | 0.950 |
| Social relationships (n=3) | 0.716 |
| Self-perceived effectiveness (n=2) | 0.742 |
| Service availability (n=3) | 0.923 |
| Facilities (n=2) | 0.746 |
| Finance (n=1) | N/A |
aThe n value refers to the number of statements within a construct.
Association between acceptance factors and intention to use medical apps.
| Factors | Univariate ORa (95% CI) | Multivariate OR (95% CI)b | Multivariate OR (95% CI)c | Included controls | Cox-Snell | Nagelkerke | |||
| Perceived usefulness | 5.94 (3.88-9.08) | <.001 | 5.25 (3.41-8.07) | <.001 | — | — | — | .340 | .456 |
| Perceived ease of use | 4.43 (3.01-6.52) | <.001 | 4.22 (2.78-6.40) | <.001 | 4.71 (3.02-7.36) | <.001 | ISAR-PCd | .298 | .400 |
| Attitude toward use | 9.19 (5.52-15.30) | <.001 | 8.50 (5.03-14.38) | <.001 | 11.24 (6.08-20.79) | <.001 | ISAR-PC, ADLe, marital state, health care use | .440 | .591 |
| Subjective norm | 1.47 (1.17-1.84) | .001 | 1.48 (1.15-1.90) | .002 | — | — | — | .129 | .173 |
| Sense of control | 3.59 (2.64-4.87) | <.001 | 3.40 (2.45-4.72) | <.001 | — | — | — | .293 | .394 |
| Feelings of anxiety | 0.56 (0.44-0.70) | <.001 | 0.62 (0.47-0.81) | .001 | — | — | — | .135 | .181 |
| Personal innovativeness | 2.38 (1.85-3.06) | <.001 | 2.08 (1.58-2.73) | <.001 | — | — | — | .182 | .243 |
| Social relationships | 1.76 (1.21-2.56) | .003 | 1.79 (1.18-2.71) | .006 | — | — | — | .131 | .175 |
| Self-perceived effectiveness | 2.84 (2.10-3.82) | <.001 | 2.69 (1.93-3.76) | <.001 | 3.05 (2.14-4.36) | <.001 | Living situation | .240 | .321 |
| Service availability | 3.71 (2.61-5.26) | <.001 | 3.46 (2.37-5.06) | <.001 | — | — | — | .245 | .329 |
| Facilities | 2.70 (2.03-3.59) | <.001 | 2.45 (1.78-3.35) | <.001 | — | — | — | .178 | .239 |
| Finance | 0.93 (0.74-1.16) | .51 | 0.98 (0.76-1.28) | .90 | — | — | — | .097 | .129 |
aOR: odds ratio.
bAdjusted for age, sex, and education.
cAdjusted for age, sex, and education and all controls that increase the OR by at least 10%.
dISAR-PC: Identification of Seniors at Risk – Primary Care.
eADL: Assessment of Activities of Daily Living, Self-Care, and Independence.