Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Dec 21;5(4):e10255.
doi: 10.2196/10255.

The Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire: Psychometric Evaluation of the Norwegian Version

Astrid Torbjørnsen  1   2 , Milada C Småstuen  1 , Anne Karen Jenum  2 , Eirik Årsand  3   4 , Lis Ribu  1
Affiliations

The Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire: Psychometric Evaluation of the Norwegian Version

Astrid Torbjørnsen et al. JMIR Hum Factors. .

Abstract

Background: When developing a mobile health app, users' perception of the technology should preferably be evaluated. However, few standardized and validated questionnaires measuring acceptability are available.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the Norwegian version of the Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire (SUTAQ).

Methods: Persons with type 2 diabetes randomized to the intervention groups of the RENEWING HEALTH study used a diabetes diary app. At the one-year follow-up, participants in the intervention groups (n=75) completed the self-reported instrument SUTAQ to measure the acceptability of the equipment. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis for evaluating the fit of the original five-factor structure of the SUTAQ.

Results: We confirmed only 2 of the original 5 factors of the SUTAQ, perceived benefit and care personnel concerns.

Conclusions: The original five-factor structure of the SUTAQ was not confirmed in the Norwegian study, indicating that more research is needed to tailor the questionnaire to better reflect the Norwegian setting. However, a small sample size prevented us from drawing firm conclusions about the translated questionnaire.

Keywords: acceptability; factor analysis; health care; mHealth; telemedicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Median reported scores of the Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire domains.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kidholm K, Ekeland AG, Jensen LK, Rasmussen J, Pedersen CD, Bowes A, Flottorp SA, Bech M. A model for assessment of telemedicine applications: mast. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012 Jan;28(1):44–51. doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000638.S0266462311000638 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kidholm K, Jensen L, Kjølhede Tue, Nielsen E, Horup M. Validity of the Model for Assessment of Telemedicine: A Delphi study. J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Feb;24(2):118–125. doi: 10.1177/1357633X16686553. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Harrison S, Stadler M, Ismail K, Amiel S, Herrmann-Werner A. Are patients with diabetes mellitus satisfied with technologies used to assist with diabetes management and coping?: A structured review. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014 Nov;16(11):771–83. doi: 10.1089/dia.2014.0062. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Holmen H, Wahl A, Cvancarova Småstuen M, Ribu L. Tailored Communication Within Mobile Apps for Diabetes Self-Management: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jun 23;19(6):e227. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7045. http://www.jmir.org/2017/6/e227/ v19i6e227 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Allemann IM, Kunz R, Blozik E. Instruments to assess patient satisfaction after teleconsultation and triage: a systematic review. Patient preference and adherence. 2014;8:a. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources