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 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Using the Technology Acceptance Model to explore community dwelling older adults’ perceptions of a 3D interior design application to facilitate pre-discharge home adaptations

Authors: Arthur G. Money, Anita Atwal, Katherine L. Young, Yasmin Day, Lesley Wilson, Kevin G. Money

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In the UK occupational therapy pre-discharge home visits are routinely carried out as a means of facilitating safe transfer from the hospital to home. Whilst they are an integral part of practice, there is little evidence to demonstrate they have a positive outcome on the discharge process. Current issues for patients are around the speed of home visits and the lack of shared decision making in the process, resulting in less than 50 % of the specialist equipment installed actually being used by patients on follow-up. To improve practice there is an urgent need to examine other ways of conducting home visits to facilitate safe discharge. We believe that Computerised 3D Interior Design Applications (CIDAs) could be a means to support more efficient, effective and collaborative practice. A previous study explored practitioners perceptions of using CIDAs; however it is important to ascertain older adult’s views about the usability of technology and to compare findings. This study explores the perceptions of community dwelling older adults with regards to adopting and using CIDAs as an assistive tool for the home adaptations process.

Methods

Ten community dwelling older adults participated in individual interactive task-focused usability sessions with a customised CIDA, utilising the think-aloud protocol and individual semi-structured interviews. Template analysis was used to carry out both deductive and inductive analysis of the think-aloud and interview data. Initially, a deductive stance was adopted, using the three pre-determined high-level themes of the technology acceptance model (TAM): Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), Actual Use (AU). Inductive template analysis was then carried out on the data within these themes, from which a number of sub-thmes emerged.

Results

Regarding PU, participants believed CIDAs served as a useful visual tool and saw clear potential to facilitate shared understanding and partnership in care delivery. For PEOU, participants were able to create 3D home environments however a number of usability issues must still be addressed. The AU theme revealed the most likely usage scenario would be collaborative involving both patient and practitioner, as many participants did not feel confident or see sufficient value in using the application autonomously.

Conclusions

This research found that older adults perceived that CIDAs were likely to serve as a valuable tool which facilitates and enhances levels of patient/practitioner collaboration and empowerment. Older adults also suggested a redesign of the interface so that less sophisticated dexterity and motor functions are required. However, older adults were not confident, or did not see sufficient value in using the application autonomously. Future research is needed to further customise the CIDA software, in line with the outcomes of this study, and to explore the potential of collaborative application patient/practitioner-based deployment.
Literature
1.
Bodenheimer T, Lorig K, Holman H, Grumbach K. Patient selfmanagement of chronic disease in primary care. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;288:2469–75.CrossRef
2.
DoH. Health and Social Care (Independent Living) Bill. London, UK: The Stationery Office; 2011.
3.
4.
Federici S, Scherer MJ, Borsci S. An ideal model of an assistive technology assessment and delivery process. Technol Disabil. 2014;26:27–38.
5.
Newman J, Kuhlmann E. Evidence-informed patient choice: practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies. J Eur Soc Policy. 2007;17(2):99–111.CrossRef
6.
DoH. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS (White paper). London, UK: The Stationery Office; 2010.
7.
8.
Mirza M, Gossett AZ, Borsci S, Federici S, Scherer MJ. The assessment of the environments of use: accessibility, sustainability, and universal design. In: Federici S, Scherer MJ, editors. Assistive technology assessment handbook. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press; 2012. p. 67–81.
9.
Atwal A, McIntyre A, Craik C, Hunt J. Older adults and carers’ perceptions of pre-discharge occupational therapy home visits in acute care. Age Ageing. 2008;37(1):72–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013;3(3):1.
11.
Atwal A, Spiliotopoulou G, Plastow N, McIntyre A, McKay E. Older adults’ experiences of occupational therapy pre-discharge home visits: a systematic thematic synthesis of qualitative research. Br J Occup Ther. 2012;75(3):118–27.CrossRef
12.
Nygard N, Grahn U, Rudenhammer A. Reflecting on practice: are home visits prior to discharge worthwhile? Scand J Caring Sci. 2000;18:183–203.
13.
Crabtree A, Hemmings T, Rodden T, Chevherst K, Clarke K, Dewsbury G, et al. Designing with care: adapting cultural probes to inform design in sensitive settings. In: OzCHI. Brisbane, Australia: UQ Print; 2003. p. 4–13.
14.
Atwal A, Money AG, Spiliotopoulou G, McIntyre A. Occupational therapists’ perceptions about the clinical utility of the 3D interior design software. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012. In Press.
15.
Wann J, Mon-Williams M. What does virtual reality NEED? Human factors issues in the design of three-dimensional computer environments. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 1996;44(6):829–47.CrossRef
16.
Merrell P, Schkufza E, Li Z, Agrawala M, Koltun V. Interactive furniture layout using interior design guidelines. ACM Trans Graphics (TOG). 2011, 30(4):1–10.
17.
Depledge MH, Stone RJ, Bird WJ. Can natural and virtual environments be used to promote improved human health and wellbeing? Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45(11):4660–5.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Qiu H, Chen L. Real-time virtual military simulation system. In: International Conference on Information Science and Engineering: 26–28 December 2009. Nanjing, China: IEEE; 2009. p. 1391–4.CrossRef
19.
Fong G. Adapting COTS games for military experimentation. Simul Gaming. 2006;37(4):452–65.CrossRef
20.
Petersson H, Sinkvist D, Wang C, Smedby R. Web-based interactive 3D visualization as a tool for improved anatomy learning. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(2):61–8.
21.
Blakely G, Skirton H, Cooper S, Allum P, Nelmes P. Educational gaming in the health sciences: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2008;65(2):259–69.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Liua C, Zhua Q, Holroydb KA, Sengb EK. Status and trends of mobile-health applications for iOS devices: a developer’s perspective. J Syst Softw. 2011;84(11):2022–33.CrossRef
23.
Chong A, Lee J, Park J. A web-based 3D system for home design. In: Stephanidis C, editor. Universal access in human-computer interaction, vol. 5615. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2009. p. 29–38.
24.
Yoon S, Oh H, Cho J. Understanding furniture design choices using a 3D virtual showroom. J Inter Des. 2010;35(3):33–50.
25.
Schaper LK, Pervan GP. ICT and OTs: a model of information and communication technology acceptance and utilisation by occupational therapists. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(1):212–21.CrossRef
26.
Atwal A, Money AG, Harvey M. Occupational therapists’ views on using a virtual reality interior design application within the pre-discharge home visit process. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(12), e283.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Calvin KL, Ben-Tzion K. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. J Am Med Inform Soc. 2009;16(4):550–60.CrossRef
28.
Morris ME, Adair B, Ozanne E, Kurowski W, Miller KJ, Pearce AJ, et al. Smart technologies to enhance social connectedness in older people who live at home. Australas J Ageing. 2013;33(3):142–52.CrossRef
29.
Morris ME, Adair B, Miller K, Ozanne E, Hansen R, Pearce AJ, et al. Smart-home technologies to assist older people to live well at home. J Ageing Sci. 2013;1(101):1–9.
30.
Barnarda Y, Bradleyb M, Hodgsona F, Lloydc AD. Learning to use new technologies by older adults: perceived difficulties, experimentation behaviour and usability. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29(4):1715–24.CrossRef
31.
Gell NM, Rosenberg DE, Demiris G, LaCroix AZ, Patel KV. Patterns of technology use among older adults with and without disabilities. The Gerontologist. 2013;55(3):412–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Mitzner TL, Boron JB, Fausset CB, Adams AE, Charness N, Czaja SJ, et al. Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26:1710–21.CrossRef
33.
Schaper LK, Pervan GP. ICT and OTs: a model of information and communication technology acceptance and utilisation by occupational therapists. Int J Med Inform. 2007;70(1):S212–21.CrossRef
34.
Money AG, Barnett J, Kuljis J, Craven MP, Martin JL, Young T. The role of the user within the medical device design and development process: medical device manufacturers’ perspectives. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11(1):e15.
35.
Borsci S, Kurosu M, Federici S, Mele ML. Computer systems experiences of users with and without disabilities: an evaluation guide for professionals. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press; 2013.
36.
Lee Y, Kozar KA, Larsen KRT. The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2003;12:752–80.
37.
38.
Bagozzi RP. The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. J Assoc Inform Syst. 2007;8:244–54.
39.
Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319–40.CrossRef
40.
Yarborough AK, Smith TB. Technology acceptance amongst physicians. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64:650–72.CrossRef
41.
Peek ST, Wouters EJ, van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJ. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(4):235–48.CrossRefPubMed
42.
43.
Wu PF. Opening the black boxes of TAM: towards a mixed methods approach. In: Thirteenth International Conference on Information Systems: 2009. Phoenix, Arizona, USA: Association of Information Systems; 2009. p. 1–10.
44.
Peine A, Rollwagen I, Neven L. The rise of the “innosumer”—rethinking older technology users. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2014;82:199–214.CrossRef
45.
Cagnin C, Havas A, Saritas O. Future-oriented technology analysis: its potential to address disruptive transformations. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2013;80(3):379–85.CrossRef
46.
Neven L. ‘But obviously not for me’: robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Sociol Health Illn. 2010;32(2):335–47.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Ostlund B. Silver age innovators: a new approach to old users. In: Kohlbacher F, Herstatt C, editors. The silver market phenomenon: marketing and innovation in the ageing society. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 15–26.CrossRef
48.
Borsci S, Macredie RD, Barnett J, Martin J, Kuljis J, Young T. Reviewing and extending the five-user assumption: a grounded procedure for interaction evaluation. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact (TOCHI). 2013;20(5), e29.CrossRef
49.
Nielsen J, Landauer TK. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In: INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 conference on human factors in computing systems. New York, USA: ACM Press; 1993. p. 206–13.
50.
Barlow J, Wright C, Sheasby J, Turner A, Hainsworth J. Self-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: a review. Patient Educ Counsel. 2002;48(2):177–87.CrossRef
51.
52.
Hanington B, Martin H. Universal methods of design. Beverley, MA, USA: Rockport; 2012.
53.
Unsworth CA. Using a head-mounted video camera to study clinical reasoning. Am J Occup Ther. 2001;55(5):582–8.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Cooke L. Assessing concurrent think-aloud protocol as a usability test method: a technical communication approach. Prof Commun. 2010;53(3):202–15.
55.
King N. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassell C, Symon G, editors. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. London, UK: Sage; 2004.
56.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
57.
Madill A, Jordan A, Shirley C. Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. Br J Psychol. 2000;91:1–20.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage Publications; 1999.
59.
Iwarsson S, Wahl HW, Nygren C, Oswald F, Sixsmith A, Sixsmith J, et al. Importance of the home environment for healthy aging: conceptual and methodological background of the European ENABLE-AGE Project. The Gerontologist. 2007;47(1):78–84.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Money AG, Fernando S, Lines L, Elliman AD. Developing and evaluating web-based assistive technologies for older adults. Gerontechnology. 2009;8(3):165–77.CrossRef
61.
Money AG, Lines L, Fernando S, Elliman AD. e-Government online-forms: design guidelines for older adults in Europe. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2011;10(1):1–16.CrossRef
62.
Bastiaens H, Van Royen P, Pavlic DR, Raposo V, Baker R. Older people’s preferences for involvement in their own care: a qualitative study in primary health care in 11 European countries. Patient Educ Counsel. 2007;68(1):33–42.CrossRef
63.
Levasseur M, Carrier A. Integrating health literacy into occupational therapy: findings from a scoping review. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012;19(4):305–14.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Johnson A, Sandford J, Tyndall J. Written and verbal information versus verbal information only for patients being discharged from acute hospital settings to home. Cochrane Database. 2008;4:CD003716.
65.
Bostock SaS A. Association between low functional health literacy and mortality in older adults: longitudinal cohort study. Br Med J. 2012;1602:1–10.
66.
Hall V, Conboy-Hill S, Taylor D. Using virtual reality to provide health care information to people with intellectual disabilities: acceptability, usability, and potential utility. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4), e91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
67.
Money AG, Lines L, Fernando S, Elliman AD. Older adults’ experiences of interacting with online forms. In: 2008 Workshop on HCI and the older population at the 22nd BCS HCI group annual conference: 2008. 2008.
68.
Sixsmith J. The meaning of home: an exploratory study of environmental experience. J Environ Psychol. 1986;6(4):281–96.CrossRef
69.
Haak M, Fänge A, Iwarsson S, Ivanoff SD. Home as a signification of independence and autonomy: experiences among very old Swedish people. Scand J Occup Ther. 2006;14(1):16–24.CrossRef
70.
Blunt A, Dowling R. Home. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge; 2006.
71.
Atwal A, McIntyre A, Craik C, Hunt J. Occupational therapists’ perceptions of predischarge home assessments with older adults in acute care. Br J Occup Ther. 2008;71(2):52–8.CrossRef
72.
Woolhead G, Calnan M, Dieppe P, Tadd W. Dignity in older age: what do older people in the United Kingdom think ? Age Ageing. 2004;33(2):165–70.CrossRefPubMed
73.
Martin JK, Martin LG, Stumbo NJ, MOrrill JH. The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol. 2011;6(3):225–42.
74.
Digby R, Bloomer MJ. Families and caregivers of older people: expectations, communication and care decisions. Collegian. 2014;21(4):345–51.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Using the Technology Acceptance Model to explore community dwelling older adults’ perceptions of a 3D interior design application to facilitate pre-discharge home adaptations
Authors
Arthur G. Money
Anita Atwal
Katherine L. Young
Yasmin Day
Lesley Wilson
Kevin G. Money
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0190-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Cultural adaptation of a shared decision making tool with Aboriginal women: a qualitative study

Research article

Administrative health data in Canada: lessons from history

Research article

Patient-reported outcomes in a large community-based pain medicine practice: evaluation for use in phenotype modeling

Research article

Decision coaching using the Ottawa family decision guide with parents and their children: a field testing study

Research article

Prediction of delayed graft function after kidney transplantation: comparison between logistic regression and machine learning methods

Research Article

Fine-grained information extraction from German transthoracic echocardiography reports