BACKGROUND: Evidence for the adoption and acceptance of assistive devices for ladder lifting tasks by workers is scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the technology acceptance and usability of a powered and automated cargo management system (RazerLift®) used by workers who need to lift ladders as part of their daily duties, as compared to mechanical cargo management systems (traditional). METHODS: We used a one-way repeated measures design in this study. Our primary outcome variable was a usability performance measurement measured as time (in seconds) for unloading and loading ladders using both systems. Our secondary outcome was technology acceptance, measured using questionnaires with a 5-point Likert scale: "strongly disagree (1)" to "strongly agree (5)". RESULTS: The participants conducted the combined unloading and loading time using the powered and automated system (RazerLift®) 20.85 seconds faster than the traditional system (p-value = 0.000, t-value (df) = -5.730 (6), d = 2.713). Overall, the RazerLift® system (mean = 44.28, SD 5.58) had a higher technology acceptance compared to the traditional system (mean = 30.00, SD 7.91), (p = 0.041, t-value (df) = 6.589 (6), d = 4.60). CONCLUSIONS: The RazerLift® was more time efficient compared with the traditional system, and (2) the RazerLift® was superior in terms of technology acceptance compared to the traditional system.
BACKGROUND: Evidence for the adoption and acceptance of assistive devices for ladder lifting tasks by workers is scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the technology acceptance and usability of a powered and automated cargo management system (RazerLift®) used by workers who need to lift ladders as part of their daily duties, as compared to mechanical cargo management systems (traditional). METHODS: We used a one-way repeated measures design in this study. Our primary outcome variable was a usability performance measurement measured as time (in seconds) for unloading and loading ladders using both systems. Our secondary outcome was technology acceptance, measured using questionnaires with a 5-point Likert scale: "strongly disagree (1)" to "strongly agree (5)". RESULTS: The participants conducted the combined unloading and loading time using the powered and automated system (RazerLift®) 20.85 seconds faster than the traditional system (p-value = 0.000, t-value (df) = -5.730 (6), d = 2.713). Overall, the RazerLift® system (mean = 44.28, SD 5.58) had a higher technology acceptance compared to the traditional system (mean = 30.00, SD 7.91), (p = 0.041, t-value (df) = 6.589 (6), d = 4.60). CONCLUSIONS: The RazerLift® was more time efficient compared with the traditional system, and (2) the RazerLift® was superior in terms of technology acceptance compared to the traditional system.
Entities:
Keywords:
Technology acceptance; UTAUT model; ergonomics; human factors; prevention of work-related musculoskeletal injuries