ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2014
Mobile technologies: expectancy, usage, and acceptance of clinical staff and patients at a university medical center.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical App Treatment of Non-Specific Low Back Pain in the 12-month Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial Rise-uP: Where Clinical Superiority Meets Cost Savings.Journal of pain research · 2024Trial
- Transition to electronic prescriptions in pharmacies: Workflows, services, and access to medication - A mixed methods approach.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- [Attitudes toward digital tools in pain medicine : Survey of German Pain Society health professional members and members of self-help groups].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2024Article
- Willingness to use remote patient monitoring among cardiovascular patients in a resource-limited setting: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Mental Health Professionals' Attitudes Toward Digital Mental Health Apps and Implications for Adoption in Portugal: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Smartphone and Mobile App Use Among Physicians in Clinical Practice: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
- Expectations of new technologies in nursing care among hospital patients in Germany - an interview study.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Digital Health Apps in the Context of Dementia: Questionnaire Study to Assess the Likelihood of Use Among Physicians.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Physicians' Attitudes Toward Prescribable mHealth Apps and Implications for Adoption in Germany: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Article
- Patient and clinician satisfaction with video consultations in dentistry - part two: clinician satisfaction.British dental journal · 2021Article
- Patient and clinician satisfaction with video consultations in dentistry - part one: patient satisfaction.British dental journal · 2021Article
- Willingness to Adopt mHealth Among Chinese Parents During the COVID-19 Outbreak: Cross-sectional Questionnaire Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Article
- Prescriber Attitudes, Experiences, and Proclivities Toward Digital Medicine and How They Influence Adoption of Digital Medicine Platforms.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2021Article
- Readiness for Voice Technology in Patients With Cardiovascular Diseases: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Smartphone and medical application use among dentists in China.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Perceptions of Patients Regarding Mobile Health Interventions for the Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Patients' Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators to the Adoption of E-Hospitals: Cross-Sectional Study in Western China.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Mobile Health Divide Between Clinicians and Patients in Cancer Care: Results From a Cross-Sectional International Survey.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- Clinicians' Concerns About Mobile Ecological Momentary Assessment Tools Designed for Emerging Psychiatric Problems: Prospective Acceptability Assessment of the MEmind App.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Are Austrian practitioners ready to use medical apps? Results of a validation study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite their increasing popularity, little is known about how users perceive mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet PCs in medical contexts. Available studies are often restricted to evaluating the success of specific interventions and do not adequately cover the users' basic attitudes, for example, their expectations or concerns toward using mobile devices in medical settings.
objectiveThe objective of the study was to obtain a comprehensive picture, both from the perspective of the patients, as well as the doctors, regarding the use and acceptance of mobile devices within medical contexts in general well as the perceived challenges when introducing the technology.
methodsDoctors working at Hannover Medical School (206/1151, response 17.90%), as well as patients being admitted to this facility (213/279, utilization 76.3%) were surveyed about their acceptance and use of mobile devices in medical settings. Regarding demographics, both samples were representative of the respective study population. GNU R (version 3.1.1) was used for statistical testing. Fisher's exact test, two-sided, alpha=.05 with Monte Carlo approximation, 2000 replicates, was applied to determine dependencies between two variables.
resultsThe majority of participants already own mobile devices (doctors, 168/206, 81.6%; patients, 110/213, 51.6%). For doctors, use in a professional context does not depend on age (P=.66), professional experience (P=.80), or function (P=.34); gender was a factor (P=.009), and use was more common among male (61/135, 45.2%) than female doctors (17/67, 25%). A correlation between use of mobile devices and age (P=.001) as well as education (P=.002) was seen for patients. Minor differences regarding how mobile devices are perceived in sensitive medical contexts mostly relate to data security, patients are more critical of the devices being used for storing and processing patient data; every fifth patient opposed this, but nevertheless, 4.8% of doctors (10/206) use their devices for this purpose. Both groups voiced only minor concerns about the credibility of the provided content or the technical reliability of the devices. While 8.3% of the doctors (17/206) avoided use during patient contact because they thought patients might be unfamiliar with the devices, (25/213) 11.7% of patients expressed concerns about the technology being too complicated to be used in a health context.
conclusionsDifferences in how patients and doctors perceive the use of mobile devices can be attributed to age and level of education; these factors are often mentioned as contributors of the problems with (mobile) technologies. To fully realize the potential of mobile technologies in a health care context, the needs of both the elderly as well as those who are educationally disadvantaged need to be carefully addressed in all strategies relating to mobile technology in a health context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.