4.7 Article

The acceptance of personal health devices among patients with chronic conditions

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.01.002

关键词

Personal health device; Chronic patient; Acceptance; Use intention; Experience of PHDs; Function preference

资金

  1. National Science Foundation China [71188001, 71031005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Personal health devices (PHDs) are rapidly developing and getting smarter. But little is known about chronic patients' acceptance of such PHDs. Objective: The objective of this study is to explore how chronic patients accept PHDs and what are the main factors that predict use intention of PHDs. The results will provide suggestions for the design of PHDs and e-health services. Method: A questionnaire survey was conducted to identify the main factors that affect chronic patients' acceptance of PHDs. Three hundred and forty-six valid responses from chronic patients were collected and the data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis and regression analysis method. The questionnaire also included questions about respondents' experience of PHDs and preference of PHD functions. These questions help to understand lived experience of PHD users and to explain the factors that influence their use intention. Result: Five influencing factors that predict use intention of PHDs were identified: attitude toward technology, perceived usefulness, ease of learning and availability, social support, and perceived pressure. An acceptance model of PHDs was proposed based on these factors, and suggestions for PHD designers and e-health service designers were discussed. The exploration of PHD experience indicated that ease of learning and social norm significantly influenced PHD use intention, and many respondents expressed negative opinions on the accuracy, durability and maintenance service of PHDs. Besides, people generally expressed positive attitude toward future functions of a PHD. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据