Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Laser | Research

Public attitudes towards the use of novel technologies in their future healthcare: a UK survey

Authors: Sarah Sauchelli, Tim Pickles, Alexandra Voinescu, Heungjae Choi, Ben Sherlock, Jingjing Zhang, Steffi Colyer, Sabrina Grant, Sethu Sundari, Gemma Lasseter

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Innovation in healthcare technologies can result in more convenient and effective treatment that is less costly, but a persistent challenge to widespread adoption in health and social care is end user acceptability. The purpose of this study was to capture UK public opinions and attitudes to novel healthcare technologies (NHTs), and to better understand the factors that contribute to acceptance and future use.

Methods

An online survey was distributed to the UK public between April and May 2020. Respondents received brief information about four novel healthcare technologies (NHTs) in development: a laser-based tool for early diagnosis of osteoarthritis, a virtual reality tool to support diabetes self-management, a non-invasive continuous glucose monitor using microwave signals, a mobile app for patient reported monitoring of rheumatoid arthritis. They were queried on their general familiarity and attitudes to technology, and their willingness to accept each NHT in their future care. Responses were analysed using summary statistics and content analysis.

Results

Knowledge about NHTs was diverse, with respondents being more aware about the health applications of mobile apps (66%), followed by laser-based technology (63.8%), microwave signalling (28%), and virtual reality (18.3%). Increasing age and the presence of a self-reported medical condition favoured acceptability for some NHTs, whereas self-reported understanding of how the NHT works resulted in elevated acceptance scores across all NHTs presented. Common contributors to hesitancy were safety and risks from use. Respondents wanted more information and evidence to help inform their decisions, ideally provided verbally by a general practitioner or health professional. Other concerns, such as privacy, were NHT-specific but equally important in decision-making.

Conclusions

Early insight into the knowledge and preconceptions of the public about NHTs in development can assist their design and prospectively mitigate obstacles to acceptance and adoption.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Snell T, Wittenberg R, Fernandez JL, Malley J, Comas-Herrera A, King D. Projections of demand for social care and disability benefits for younger adults in england report of research conducted for the commission on funding of care and support. 2011.
3.
4.
5.
HM Treasury. CP 297—Winter Economy Plan—September 2020. 2020.
6.
Department of Health. Innovation, Health and Wealth. Accelerating adoption and diffusion in the NHS. Department of Health, editor. London; 2011.
7.
HEE. Preparing the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future The Topol Review. an independent report on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Nhs. 2019;(February):102.
8.
Shore J, Green M, Hardy A, Livesey D. The compliance and cost-effectiveness of smartphone urinalysis albumin screening for people with diabetes in England. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2020;20(4):387–95.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, Kröger J, Weitgasser R. Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2016;388(10057):2254–63.CrossRef
10.
Thiyagarajan A, Grant C, Griffiths F, Atherton H. Exploring patients’ and clinicians’ experiences of video consultations in primary care: a systematic scoping review. BJGP Open. 2020;4(1).
11.
Campbell B, Dobson L, Higgins J, Dillon B, Marlow M, Pomfrett C. A new health technology assessment system for devices: the first five years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(1):19–24.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Shaw S, Wherton J, Vijayaraghavan S, Morris J, Bhattacharya S, Hanson P, et al. Health services and delivery research. 2018;6(21).
13.
Jeffries M, Phipps D, Howard RL, Avery A, Rodgers S, Ashcroft D. Understanding the implementation and adoption of an information technology intervention to support medicine optimisation in primary care: Qualitative study using strong structuration theory. BMJ Open. 2017;7(5):1–10.CrossRef
14.
Zanaboni P, Wootton R. Adoption of routine telemedicine in Norwegian hospitals: progress over 5 years. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):1–13.CrossRef
15.
Greenhalgh T, Shaw S, Wherton J, Vijayaraghavan S, Morris J, Bhattacharya S, et al. Real-world implementation of video outpatient consultations at macro, meso, and micro levels: mixed-method study. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(4).
16.
Regan DT, Fazio R. On the consistency between attitudes and behavior: look to the method of attitude formation. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1977;13(1):28–45.CrossRef
17.
18.
Morris ZS, wooding S, Grant J,. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: Understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Grundy Q, Hutchison K, Johnson J, Blakely B, Clay-Wlliams R, Richards B, et al. Device representatives in hospitals: are commercial imperatives driving clinical decision-making? J Med Ethics. 2018;44(9):589–92.CrossRefPubMed
20.
O’Connor S, Hanlon P, O’Donnell CA, Garcia S, Glanville J, Mair FS. Understanding factors affecting patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Vol. 16, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. BioMed Central Ltd; 2016. p. 120.
21.
Hardiker NR, Grant MJ. Factors that influence public engagement with eHealth: a literature review. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80:1–12.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Budd J, Miller BS, Manning EM, Lampos V, Zhuang M, Edelstein M, et al. Digital technologies in the public-health response to COVID-19. Nat Med Nat Res. 2020;26:1183–92.CrossRef
23.
Western MJ, Armstrong MEG, Islam I, Morgan K, Jones UF, Kelson MJ. Improving children’s fundamental movement skills through a family-based physical activity program: results from the “Active 1 + FUN” randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18:148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Lee CC, Czaja SJ, Moxley JH, Sharit J, Boot WR, Charness N, et al. Attitudes toward computers across adulthood from 1994 to 2013. Gerontologist. 2019;59(1):22.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Swain S, Sarmanova A, Mallen C, Kuo CF, Coupland C, Doherty M, et al. Trends in incidence and prevalence of osteoarthritis in the United Kingdom: findings from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2020;28(6):792–801.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
28.
29.
Office for National Statistics. Research report on population estimates by ethnic group and religion. 2019;(December):1–19.
30.
Kim HC. Acceptability engineering: The study of user acceptance of innovative technologies. J Appl Res Technol. 2015;13(2):230–7.CrossRef
31.
Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform. 2010;43(1):159–72.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Kyratsis Y, Ahmad R, Holmes A. Technology adoption and implementation in organisations: comparative case studies of 12 English NHS Trusts. BMJ Open. 2012;2(2):1–9.CrossRef
33.
Hauk N, Hüffmeier J, Krumm S. Ready to be a silver surfer? A meta-analysis on the relationship between chronological age and technology acceptance. Comput Human Behav. 2018;84:304–19.CrossRef
34.
Chen K, Chan AHS. A review of technology acceptance by older adults. Gerontechnology. 2011;10(1):1–12.CrossRef
35.
Mallenius S, Rossi M, Tuunainen V. Factors affecting the adoption and use of mobile devices and services by elderly people - results from a pilot study. In: 6th Annual Global Mobility Roundtable. Los Angeles; 2007.
36.
Shahab L, McGowan JA, Waller J, Smith SG. Prevalence of beliefs about actual and mythical causes of cancer and their association with socio-demographic and health-related characteristics: findings from a cross-sectional survey in England. Eur J Cancer. 2018;103:308–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Miller MR, Herrera F, Jun H, Landay JA, Bailenson JN. Personal identifiability of user tracking data during observation of 360-degree VR video. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–10.CrossRef
38.
Huygelier H, Schraepen B, van Ee R, Vanden Abeele V, Gillebert CR. Acceptance of immersive head-mounted virtual reality in older adults. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–12.CrossRef
39.
Zhou L, Bao J, Watzlaf V, Parmanto B. Barriers to and facilitators of the use of mobile health apps from a security perspective: mixed-methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(4):e11223.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Sturgis P, Allum N. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understand Sci. 2004;13(1):55–74.CrossRef
41.
Garrett PM, White JP, Lewandowsky S, Kashima Y, Perfors A, Little DR, et al. The acceptability and uptake of smartphone tracking for COVID-19 in Australia. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:1–23.CrossRef
42.
Bauer MS, Kirchner JA. Implementation science: What is it and why should I care? Vol. 283, Psychiatry Research. Elsevier Ireland Ltd; 2020. p. 112376.
43.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82:581–629.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Shared decision-making NICE guideline [NG197]. 2021.
Metadata
Title
Public attitudes towards the use of novel technologies in their future healthcare: a UK survey
Authors
Sarah Sauchelli
Tim Pickles
Alexandra Voinescu
Heungjae Choi
Ben Sherlock
Jingjing Zhang
Steffi Colyer
Sabrina Grant
Sethu Sundari
Gemma Lasseter
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Laser
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02118-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2023 Go to the issue

Review

The tragic paradoxical effect of telemedicine on healthcare disparities- a time for redemption: a narrative review

Research

Particle filter-based parameter estimation algorithm for prognostic risk assessment of progression in non-small cell lung cancer

Research

Validation of the Swedish Quality Register for Ear Surgery – SwedEar

Research

Data management system for diabetes clinical trials: a pre-post evaluation study

Research

Development and usability evaluation of an electronic health report form to assess health in young people: a mixed-methods approach

Research

Intelligent identification system of gastric stromal tumors based on blood biopsy indicators