| Literature DB >> 35479503 |
Bernard Appiah1,2, Irene Akwo Kretchy3, Aya Yoshikawa4, Lucy Asamoah-Akuoko2,5, Christopher R France6.
Abstract
Background: In several African and Asian countries, callers to mobile phones sometimes hear a song or message in place of the typical ringing sound. This application, called caller tunes, may offer a unique opportunity to promote medication adherence that is yet to be explored.Entities:
Keywords: Caller tunes; Medication adherence; Technology acceptance model
Year: 2021 PMID: 35479503 PMCID: PMC9031033 DOI: 10.1016/j.rcsop.2021.100005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm ISSN: 2667-2766
Fig. 1Hypotheses of the adopted technology acceptance model.
Constructs tested for exploring the utility of using mobile phone caller tunes to promote medication adherence.
| Construct | Definition |
|---|---|
| Perceived Ease of Use | The degree to which respondents feel it is easy to download caller tunes onto a mobile phone to promote medication adherence |
| Perceived Usefulness | The perception by respondents that caller tunes could be a useful technology for improving medication adherence |
| Intention to Use | Respondents goal to use mobile phone caller tunes to promote medication adherence |
| Free of Cost | Making caller tunes free to those who intend to download it for promoting medication adherence |
Characteristics of respondents who did and did not have caller tunes.
| Caller Tunes n (%) | No Caller Tunes n (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 319 (66.2) | 315 (67.2) | 0.801 |
| Age in years | ||||
| 18–20 | 222 (45.9) | 143 (30.5) | < 0.001 | |
| 21–30 | 197 (40.7) | 272 (58.0) | ||
| 31–40 | 46 (9.5) | 39 (8.3) | ||
| 41–50 | 15 (3.1) | 11 (2.3) | ||
| 51–60 | 2 (0.4) | 3 (0.6) | ||
| >60 | 2 (0.4) | 1 (0.2 | ||
| Education | < 0.001 | |||
| Primary | 12 (2.5) | 7 (1.5) | ||
| Middle school | 3 (0.6) | 8 (1.7) | ||
| Junior high school | 39 (8.1) | 29 (6.2) | ||
| Senior high school | 213 (44.1) | 132 (28.1) | ||
| Above senior high school | 216 (44.7) | 293 (62.5) | ||
| Self-rated health | 0.823 | |||
| Excellent | 194 (40.1) | 192 (40.9) | ||
| Very good | 191 (39.5) | 173 (36.9) | ||
| Good | 88 (18.2) | 94 (20.0) | ||
| Fair | 10 (2.1) | 9 (1.9) | ||
| Poor | 1 (0.2) | 1 (0.2) | ||
Note: For analysis of group differences, age was recategorized into four groups (< 20, 21–30, 31–40, > 40) to satisfy the Chi-square test assumption of at least 5 observations per category.
Reliability and validity of measures for respondents with or without caller tunes.
| Respondents with caller tunes | Respondents without caller tunes | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale/Item | Factor loading | α | Composite reliability | Average variance extracted | Factor loading | α | Composite reliability | Average variance extracted | |
| Ease of use | 0.877 | 0.91 | 0.58 | 0.871 | 0.92 | 0.80 | |||
| item 1 | 0.73 | 0.90 | |||||||
| item 2 | 0.79 | 0.94 | |||||||
| item 3 | 0.78 | 0.84 | |||||||
| item 4 | 0.71 | ||||||||
| item 5 | 0.76 | ||||||||
| item 6 | 0.80 | ||||||||
| item 7 | 0.74 | ||||||||
| Usefulness | 0.813 | 0.89 | 0.73 | 0.858 | 0.91 | 0.78 | |||
| item 1 | 0.85 | 0.90 | |||||||
| item 2 | 0.88 | 0.91 | |||||||
| item 3 | 0.83 | 0.84 | |||||||
Fig. 2Models showing standardized path coefficients for respondents with caller tunes **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.
Fig. 3Models showing standardized path coefficients for respondents without caller tunes **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.
Global model fit indices for respondents with and without caller tunes.
| Fit index | With caller tunes | Without caller tunes | Criteria value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) | 0.96 | 0.99 | ≥ 0.95 |
| Comparative fit index (CFI) | 0.97 | 0.99 | ≥ 0.95 |
| RMSEA (90% CI) | 0.05 (0.04–0.07) | 0.05 (0.02–0.07) | < 0.06 |
| Chi square | 2.3 | 2 | < 5.00 |
Note: RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.