Difference between revisions of "A Systematic Review of Patient Acceptance of Consumer Health Information Technology"
Anita Bandri (Talk | contribs) |
Anita Bandri (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
*Prior experience or exposure to computer/health technology appears to be associated with increased acceptance. | *Prior experience or exposure to computer/health technology appears to be associated with increased acceptance. | ||
*Although not a consistent effect, generally, older adults are less likely to accept CHITs. This could possibly be due to less computer familiarity or literacy among older patients. | *Although not a consistent effect, generally, older adults are less likely to accept CHITs. This could possibly be due to less computer familiarity or literacy among older patients. | ||
| + | *Most of the studies that tested the effect of gender demonstrated that gender had no direct impact on acceptance. However, studies of other types of technologies have found that gender was a significant moderator of computer anxiety and perceived behavioral control.Previous studies demonstrated that women were more likely to report higher computer anxiety than men and perceived behavioral control was more salient for women in the early stages of experiencing technology. | ||
| + | *Studies showed that physical, visual, and cognitive limitations are associated with decreased acceptance. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Human–Technology Interaction Factors=== | ||
| + | Davis' Technology Acceptance Model posits perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as the main predictors of technology acceptance. | ||
| + | *All studies that tested the influences of usefulness, ease of use, and computer/technology self-efficacy demonstrated that those variables were significant predictors of acceptance. | ||
| + | *Computer anxiety was tested in 3 of the 52 studies, and all three studies indicated that computer anxiety was negatively associated with acceptance. Feelings of anxiety surrounding computers can be negatively associated with perceived ease of use, and in turn influence acceptance. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Organizational Factors=== | ||
| + | *Organizational factors that were found to lead to increased acceptance included being less satisfied with medical care services, being less satisfied with one's health plan, being less reliant on others for transportation, having Internet skill training, being less satisfied with the amount of disease treatment-related information given by physician, having a regular primary care provider, attending one of the two study hospitals, being in an academic medical center (vs. veterans affairs hospital), having difficulty accessing necessary health care, having more trust in one's health care provider, having more trust in the technology vendor, and having a higher external control belief. | ||
| + | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 18:03, 13 November 2015
In this article a systematic literature review was performed to identify variables promoting consumer health information technology (CHIT) acceptance, or barriers in acceptance of CHIT among patients.[1]
Contents
Background
consumer health information technologies (CHITs) are defined as computer-based systems that are designed to facilitate information access and exchange, enhance decision making, provide social and emotional support, and help behavior changes that promote health and well-being. While the potential for using CHITs to improve health care has been acknowledged, these technologies are still not always accepted by patients for variety of reasons, including poor device usability, insufficient training on how to use the technology, lack of computer skills, and low self-efficacy. There is a considerable body of research testing the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of various CHITs for primary health care service delivery, in general, or patient self-care at home, in particular.
Methods
“Acceptance” of technology has been defined in four primary ways: (1) satisfaction with the technology, (2) use or adoption of the technology, (3) efficient or effective use of the technology, and (4) intention or willingness to use the technology.Online database literature searches were performed in early Dec 2006, and again in Feb 2009 to obtain relevant research articles to review. The electronic bibliographic databases used for searching were Web of Science, Business Source Elite, CINAHL, Communication and Mass Media Complete, MEDLINE, PsycArticles, and PsycInfo. The search terms employed were patient*, senior*, elder*, old*, disabilit*, accept*, abandon*, intent*, intention to use, reject*, satisf*, use*, utiliz*, computer*, eHealth, e-health, e-mail, health* informat*, Internet, technolog*, web*, telemedicine, and combinations of them. The authors manually searched the following health informatics journals to reduce the likelihood of missing relevant articles: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Journal of Medical Internet Research, and Telemedicine and e-Health.[1]
Results
The search returned 1,871 articles and their titles and abstracts were read. Based on the selection criteria, 185 articles were retained for more detailed review. Fifty-two articles met the criteria and were included in this review study. 94 different predictors of acceptance were tested in the studies reviewed.[1]
Discussion
Organizational variables were tested, few human-technology interaction or environmental variables were examined, and social variables were studied:
Patient Factors
Technology acceptance studies in the field of information systems have suggested that age, gender, education level, computing experience, and voluntariness of use moderate the effects of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, subjective norm, and computer anxiety on acceptance.
- studies found that acceptance increased with higher education.
- Prior experience or exposure to computer/health technology appears to be associated with increased acceptance.
- Although not a consistent effect, generally, older adults are less likely to accept CHITs. This could possibly be due to less computer familiarity or literacy among older patients.
- Most of the studies that tested the effect of gender demonstrated that gender had no direct impact on acceptance. However, studies of other types of technologies have found that gender was a significant moderator of computer anxiety and perceived behavioral control.Previous studies demonstrated that women were more likely to report higher computer anxiety than men and perceived behavioral control was more salient for women in the early stages of experiencing technology.
- Studies showed that physical, visual, and cognitive limitations are associated with decreased acceptance.
Human–Technology Interaction Factors
Davis' Technology Acceptance Model posits perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as the main predictors of technology acceptance.
- All studies that tested the influences of usefulness, ease of use, and computer/technology self-efficacy demonstrated that those variables were significant predictors of acceptance.
- Computer anxiety was tested in 3 of the 52 studies, and all three studies indicated that computer anxiety was negatively associated with acceptance. Feelings of anxiety surrounding computers can be negatively associated with perceived ease of use, and in turn influence acceptance.
Organizational Factors
- Organizational factors that were found to lead to increased acceptance included being less satisfied with medical care services, being less satisfied with one's health plan, being less reliant on others for transportation, having Internet skill training, being less satisfied with the amount of disease treatment-related information given by physician, having a regular primary care provider, attending one of the two study hospitals, being in an academic medical center (vs. veterans affairs hospital), having difficulty accessing necessary health care, having more trust in one's health care provider, having more trust in the technology vendor, and having a higher external control belief.
