4.5 Article

Carer's perception on social assistive technology acceptance and adoption: moderating effects of perceived risks

Journal

BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Volume 40, Issue 4, Pages 337-360

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1690046

Keywords

Social assistive technology; technology acceptance model; diffusion of innovation; perceived risk; social robots; carer's job characteristics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research focuses on the adoption and acceptance of social assistive technologies (ATs) in aged care, developing and validating a conceptual model and exploring the moderating effects of perceived risk. The study used a mixed methods approach and provided empirical evidence on the adoption of social ATs in aged care from the perspective of carers.
This research focuses on the adoption and acceptance of social assistive technologies (ATs) in the aged care context where carers provide care services to older adults. This research develops and validates a conceptual model adapted from existing technology acceptance and adoption models and theories. The moderating effects of perceived risk were also investigated to indicate how carers adopt and accept social ATs in aged care facilities. This research was undertaken using a mixed methods study combining a qualitative approach (Study 1: carer observations, focus groups and interviews) and a quantitative approach (Study 2: structural equation modelling). We observed 13 carers over 2 years using social ATs and carried out three focus groups and 15 interviews with carers. A quantitative survey was then distributed among 302 carers in Australia to collect quantitative data. Less attention was paid to the adoption of social ATs in aged care. This research provides empirical evidence showing how social robots as social ATs can facilitate technological innovation acceptance and adoption within aged care from the perspective of carers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available