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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Renal transplant patient acceptance of a self-management support system

Authors: Wenxin Wang, Céline L. van Lint, Willem-Paul Brinkman, Ton J. M. Rövekamp, Sandra van Dijk, Paul J. M. van der Boog, Mark A. Neerincx

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Self-management support systems (SMSS) have been proposed for renal transplant patients to increase their autonomy and reduce the number of hospital visits. For the design and implementation of such systems, it is important to understand factors influencing patients’ acceptance of a SMSS. This paper aims to identify these key factors.

Methods

From literature, possible factors and related questionnaire items were identified. Afterwards, focus groups with experts and patients were conducted to adapt the items to the application domain. To investigate acceptance of a SMSS and the influencing factors, fifty renal transplant patients answered the questionnaire before and after using the SMSS for 4 months.

Results

All the questionnaire constructs had a satisfactory or higher level of reliability. After using the SMSS for 4 months, trust and performance expectancy could explain part of the variation in behavioural intention of using the SMSS, but not beyond the explanation given by patients’ affect towards the system, which accounted for 26% of the variance.

Conclusions

We anticipate that in future caregivers implementing a SMSS will benefit from taking steps to improve patients’ affect as this was found to correlate with patients use intention.

Trial registration

The study was registered in ToetsingOnline, a registry held by the Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects. The registration number is NL33387.​058.​11, and the date of registration is 31st July 2012.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Jha V, Garcia-Garcia G, Iseki K, Li Z, Naicker S, Plattner B, et al. Chronic kidney disease: global dimension and perspectives. Lancet. 2013;382(9888):260–72.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Tonelli M, Wiebe N, Knoll G, Bello A, Browne S, Jadhav D, et al. Systematic review: kidney transplantation compared with dialysis in clinically relevant outcomes. Am J Transplant. 2011;11(10):2093–109.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Barlow J, Wright C, Sheasby J, Turner A, Hainsworth J. Self-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: a review. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48(2):177–87.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Lorig KR, Ritter PL, Laurent DD, Plant K. Internet-based chronic disease self-management: a randomized trial. Med Care. 2006;44(11):964–71.CrossRefPubMed
6.
McKay HG, Glasgow RE, Feil EG, Boles SM, Barrera Jr M. Internet-based diabetes self-management and support: Initial outcomes from the Diabetes Network project. Rehabil Psychol. 2002;47(1):31.CrossRef
7.
Bickmore TW, Silliman RA, Nelson K, Cheng DM, Winter M, Henault L, et al. A randomized controlled trial of an automated exercise coach for older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(10):1676–83.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Bickmore TW, Schulman D, Sidner C. Automated interventions for multiple health behaviors using conversational agents. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;92(2):142–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Bickmore TW, Puskar K, Schlenk EA, Pfeifer LM, Sereika SM. Maintaining reality: relational agents for antipsychotic medication adherence. Interacting with Computers. 2010;22(4):276–88.CrossRef
10.
Fishbein M. A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications. 1979.
11.
Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Action control. Springer; 1985. p. 11–39.
12.
Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE. 1989;35(8):982–1003.CrossRef
13.
Lui HK, Jamieson R. Integrating Trust and Risk Perceptions in Business-to-Consumer Electronic Commerce with the Technology Acceptance Model. ECIS 2003 proceedings. 2003:60.
14.
Li Y-H, Huang J-W. Applying theory of perceived risk and technology acceptance model in the online shopping channel. World Acad Sci Eng Technol. 2009;1:919–25.
15.
Hsu C-L, Lu H-P. Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management. 2004;41(7):853–68. http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​im.​2003.​08.​014.CrossRef
16.
Sun Q, Wang C, Cao H, editors. An extended TAM for analyzing adoption behavior of mobile commerce. Mobile Business, 2009. ICMB 2009. Eighth International Conference on; 2009: IEEE.
17.
Simon CRA, Gude TW, Holleman F, Hoekstra BLJ, Peek N. Diabetes patients' experiences with the implementation of insulin therapy and their perceptions of computer-assisted self-management systems for insulin therapy. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(10), e235.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Edwards L, Thomas C, Gregory A, Yardley L, O'Cathain A, Montgomery AA, et al. Are people with chronic diseases interested in using telehealth? A cross-sectional postal survey. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(5), e123.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Gilbert M, Hottes ST, Kerr T, Taylor D, Fairley KC, Lester R, et al. Factors associated with intention to use internet-based testing for sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(11), e254.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Agarwal R, Anderson C, Zarate J, Ward C. If we offer it, will they accept? Factors affecting patient use intentions of personal health records and secure messaging. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(2), e43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Arning K, Ziefle M, Arning J. Comparing apples and oranges? Exploring users’ acceptance of ICT-and eHealth-applications. Digital camera. 2008;83(50):0–01.
22.
Karsh B-T, editor. The patient technology acceptance model (PTAM) for homecare patients with chronic illness. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Sage CA; 2006.
23.
Ahadzadeh AS, Pahlevan Sharif S, Ong FS, Khong KW. Integrating health belief model and technology acceptance model: an investigation of health-related internet use. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2), e45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Beenkens FHC. Acceptance of E-health technology: a patient perspective. TU Delft: Delft University of Technology; 2011.
25.
Kim J, Park H-A. Development of a health information technology acceptance model using consumers’ health behavior intention. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(5), e133.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci. 2000;46(2):186–204.CrossRef
27.
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Gordon BD, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003;27(3):425–78.
28.
Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci. 2008;39(2):273–315.CrossRef
29.
King WR, He J. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & management. 2006;43(6):740–55.CrossRef
30.
Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management. 2003;40(3):191–204.CrossRef
31.
Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319–40.CrossRef
32.
Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. 1975.
33.
Thompson RL, Higgins CA, Howell JM. Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q. 1991;15(1):125–43.CrossRef
34.
Phau I, Teah M, Lwin M, editors. Facilitating conditions and social factors as predictors of attitudes and intentions to illegally download. Australian and New Zealand marketing academy conference proceedings. 2009.
35.
Hart M, Henriques V. On the influence of facilitating conditions on DSS usage. Preface of the Editors. 2006. p. 135.
36.
Taylor S, Todd PA. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH. 1995;6(2):144–76.CrossRef
37.
Taylor S, Todd PA. Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience. MIS Q. 1995;19(4):561–70.CrossRef
38.
Compeau DR, Higgins CA. Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q. 1995;19(2):189–211.CrossRef
39.
Gamberini L, Barresi G, Maier A, Scarpetta F. A game a day keeps the doctor away: A short review of computer games in mental healthcare. Journal of CyberTherapy and Rehabilitation. 2008;1(2):127–45.
40.
Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Burkhardt ME, Brass DJ. Changing patterns or patterns of change: The effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Administrative science quarterly. 1990;35(1):104–27.
42.
Hill T, Smith ND, Mann MF. Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies: the case of computers. J Appl Psychol. 1987;72(2):307.CrossRef
43.
Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW. Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q. 2003;27(1):51–90.
44.
Yu J, Ha I, Choi M, Rho J. Extending the TAM for a t-commerce. Inf Manage. 2005;42(7):965–76.CrossRef
45.
Compeau DR, Higgins CA, Huff S. Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: a longitudinal study. MIS Q. 1999;23(2):145–58.CrossRef
46.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.CrossRef
47.
Mathieson K. Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH. 1991;2(3):173–91.CrossRef
48.
Cheung C, Lee MKO, editors. Trust in internet shopping: a proposed model and measurement instrument. AMCIS 2000 Proceedings. 2000.
49.
Petkov J, Harvey P, Battersby M. The internal consistency and construct validity of the partners in health scale: validation of a patient rated chronic condition self-management measure. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(7):1079–85.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Textbook ES. StatSoft. Inc, Tulsa, OK, USA. 2013.
51.
Allison PD. Missing data. vol no. 136. Sage publications; 2001.
52.
Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods. 2002;7(2):147.CrossRefPubMed
53.
DlClCClO T, Efron B. Bootstrap confidence intervals (with discussion). Statist Sci. 1996;11:189–228.CrossRef
54.
Adèr HJ, Adèr M. Advising on research methods: a consultant's companion. Huizen: Johannes van Kessel Publishing; 2008.
55.
Stevens JP. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New York: Routledge; 2012.
56.
Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 2009.
57.
Sanches P, Kosmack Vaara E, Sjölinder M, Weymann C, Höök K. Affective Health–designing for empowerment rather than stress diagnosis. Know thyself: monitoring and reflecting on facets of one's life at CHI 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2010.
58.
Dahlgaard JJ, Ayas E, Eklund J, Ishihara S. Affective design of waiting areas in primary healthcare. The TQM Journal. 2008;20(4):389–408.CrossRef
59.
Devlin AS, Arneill AB. Health care environments and patient outcomes a review of the literature. Environ Behav. 2003;35(5):665–94.CrossRef
60.
Birren F. Color & human response: aspects of light and color bearing on the reactions of living things and the welfare of human beings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company; 1978.
Metadata
Title
Renal transplant patient acceptance of a self-management support system
Authors
Wenxin Wang
Céline L. van Lint
Willem-Paul Brinkman
Ton J. M. Rövekamp
Sandra van Dijk
Paul J. M. van der Boog
Mark A. Neerincx
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0456-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Development of an algorithm for determining smoking status and behaviour over the life course from UK electronic primary care records

Research article

Comparison of machine learning techniques to predict all-cause mortality using fitness data: the Henry ford exercIse testing (FIT) project

Database

ApreciseKUre: an approach of Precision Medicine in a Rare Disease

Research article

Supervised learning for infection risk inference using pathology data

Research article

Using record linkage to validate notification and laboratory data for a more accurate assessment of notifiable infectious diseases

Research article

Implementing an online pharmaceutical service using design science research