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
. 2020 Jul 6;22(7):e17256.
doi: 10.2196/17256.

Technology Acceptance in Mobile Health: Scoping Review of Definitions, Models, and Measurement

Camille Nadal  1 , Corina Sas  2 , Gavin Doherty  1
Affiliations

Technology Acceptance in Mobile Health: Scoping Review of Definitions, Models, and Measurement

Camille Nadal et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Designing technologies that users will be interested in, start using, and keep using has long been a challenge. In the health domain, the question of technology acceptance is even more important, as the possible intrusiveness of technologies could lead to patients refusing to even try them. Developers and researchers must address this question not only in the design and evaluation of new health care technologies but also across the different stages of the user's journey. Although a range of definitions for these stages exists, many researchers conflate related terms, and the field would benefit from a coherent set of definitions and associated measurement approaches.

Objective: This review aims to explore how technology acceptance is interpreted and measured in mobile health (mHealth) literature. We seek to compare the treatment of acceptance in mHealth research with existing definitions and models, identify potential gaps, and contribute to the clarification of the process of technology acceptance.

Methods: We searched the PubMed database for publications indexed under the Medical Subject Headings terms "Patient Acceptance of Health Care" and "Mobile Applications." We included publications that (1) contained at least one of the terms "acceptability," "acceptance," "adoption," "accept," or "adopt"; and (2) defined the term. The final corpus included 68 relevant studies.

Results: Several interpretations are associated with technology acceptance, few consistent with existing definitions. Although the literature has influenced the interpretation of the concept, usage is not homogeneous, and models are not adapted to populations with particular needs. The prevalence of measurement by custom surveys suggests a lack of standardized measurement tools.

Conclusions: Definitions from the literature were published separately, which may contribute to inconsistent usage. A definition framework would bring coherence to the reporting of results, facilitating the replication and comparison of studies. We propose the Technology Acceptance Lifecycle, consolidating existing definitions, articulating the different stages of technology acceptance, and providing an explicit terminology. Our findings illustrate the need for a common definition and measurement framework and the importance of viewing technology acceptance as a staged process, with adapted measurement methods for each stage.

Keywords: Technology Acceptance Lifecycle; mHealth; mobile applications; mobile phone; patient acceptance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of the terminology used with a classification following the measurement stage (some papers employed multiple terms).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Proposed terminology for technology acceptance lifecycle.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sanches P, Janson A, Karpashevich P, Nadal C, Qu C, Dauden RC, Umair M, Windlin C, Doherty G, Hook K, Sas C. HCI and Affective Health: Taking Stock of a Decade of Studies and Charting Future Research Directions. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; CHI'19; May 4-9, 2019; Glasgow, UK. 2019. - DOI
    1. Coman A, Sas C. A hybrid intervention for challenging the stigma of mental illness. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Series VII: Social Sciences and Law. 2016;9(58):73. http://webbut.unitbv.ro/BU2016/Series%20VII/BULETIN%20I/12_Coman.pdf
    1. Stowell E, Lyson M, Saksono H, Wurth R, Jimison H, Pavel M, Parker A. Designing and Evaluating mHealth Interventions for Vulnerable Populations: A Systematic Review. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; CHI'18; April 21-26, 2018; Montreal, QC. 2018. - DOI
    1. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-017-2... - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wozney L, McGrath PJ, Gehring ND, Bennett K, Huguet A, Hartling L, Dyson MP, Soleimani A, Newton AS. eMental healthcare technologies for anxiety and depression in childhood and adolescence: systematic review of studies reporting implementation outcomes. JMIR Ment Health. 2018 Jun 26;5(2):e48. doi: 10.2196/mental.9655. https://mental.jmir.org/2018/2/e48/ - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types