Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30646756›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2019

Acceptance of the Artificial Pancreas: Comparing the Effect of Technology Readiness, Product Characteristics, and Social Influence Between Invited and Self-Selected Respondents.

Tamara Oukes, Helga Blauw, Arianne C van Bon, J Hans DeVries, Ariane M von Raesfeld

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tamara Oukes1 Center for Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Innovation Management (ESIM-NIKOS), Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences (BMS), University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Helga Blauw2 Department of Endocrinology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Arianne C van Bon4 Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
J Hans DeVries2 Department of Endocrinology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ariane M von Raesfeld1 Center for Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Innovation Management (ESIM-NIKOS), Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences (BMS), University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Twente · NLRijnstate Hospital · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPsychosocial factors that may affect acceptance of artificial pancreas (AP) systems have been investigated in small sample sizes of highly motivated, self-selected persons with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) with a focus on product characteristics. We aimed to develop a valid survey to investigate the association of technology readiness and social influence with AP acceptance in a larger sample, including both self-selected and invited respondents with T1DM.

methodsAn online survey was developed based on established questionnaires. Intention to use the AP was chosen as measure of AP acceptance. T1DM patients who signed up themselves for scientific research into AP systems represented the self-selected group, while patients treated at a teaching hospital represented the invited group. Questionnaire values were compared using independent

resultsThe developed survey showed reliability and validity. The survey was completed by 425 self-selected and 109 invited persons. Intention to use the AP was high in both groups, but was significantly higher among self-selected respondents. In both groups, intention to use the AP was most strongly related to product compatibility, followed by product complexity, technology readiness, and product usefulness among invited respondents; and followed by product usefulness and technology innovativeness among self-selected respondents.

conclusionsProduct characteristics have a stronger relationship with AP acceptance than technology readiness, while social influence does not seem to be associated with AP acceptance. As the (strength of) factors differ between self-selected and invited persons, researchers and product developers should be cautious when relying on self-selected persons with T1DM in the design, development, and testing of AP systems.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAdultDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPancreas, ArtificialPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient SelectionPsychologyacceptanceartificial pancreasinvited and self-selected respondentspsychosocial factorsquestionnaire development

Identifiers

PMID30646756
PMCPMC6955445
OpenAlexW2910767397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.