Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35804356›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Analyzing the determinants to accept a virtual assistant and use cases among cancer patients: a mixed methods study.

Martien J P van Bussel, Gaby J Odekerken-Schröder, Carol Ou, Rachelle R Swart, Maria J G Jacobs

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Comparative Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Virtual Assistant and Large Language Models in Post-Operative Care.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Martien J P van BusselDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. martien.vanbussel@maastro.nl.
Gaby J Odekerken-SchröderDepartment of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Carol OuTilburg School of Economics and Management, Department of Management, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Rachelle R SwartDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maria J G JacobsTilburg School of Economics and Management, Department of Management, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Maastro Clinic · NLTilburg University · NLMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnological progress in artificial intelligence has led to the increasing popularity of virtual assistants, i.e., embodied or disembodied conversational agents that allow chatting with a technical system in a natural language. However, only little comprehensive research is conducted about patients' perceptions and possible applications of virtual assistant in healthcare with cancer patients. This research aims to investigate the key acceptance factors and value-adding use cases of a virtual assistant for patients diagnosed with cancer.

methodsQualitative interviews with eight former patients and four doctors of a Dutch radiotherapy institute were conducted to determine what acceptance factors they find most important for a virtual assistant and gain insights into value-adding applications. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) was used to structure perceptions and was inductively modified as a result of the interviews. The subsequent research model was triangulated via an online survey with 127 respondents diagnosed with cancer. A structural equation model was used to determine the relevance of acceptance factors. Through a multigroup analysis, differences between sample subgroups were compared.

resultsThe interviews found support for all factors of the UTAUT: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions. Additionally, self-efficacy, trust, and resistance to change, were added as an extension of the UTAUT. Former patients found a virtual assistant helpful in receiving information about logistic questions, treatment procedures, side effects, or scheduling appointments. The quantitative study found that the constructs performance expectancy (ß = 0.399), effort expectancy (ß = 0.258), social influence (ß = 0.114), and trust (ß = 0.210) significantly influenced behavioral intention to use a virtual assistant, explaining 80% of its variance. Self-efficacy (ß = 0.792) acts as antecedent of effort expectancy. Facilitating conditions and resistance to change were not found to have a significant relationship with user intention.

conclusionsPerformance and effort expectancy are the leading determinants of virtual assistant acceptance. The latter is dependent on a patient's self-efficacy. Therefore, including patients during the development and introduction of a VA in cancer treatment is important. The high relevance of trust indicates the need for a reliable, secure service that should be promoted as such. Social influence suggests using doctors in endorsing the VA.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNeoplasmsHumansIntentionModels, TheoreticalSurveys and QuestionnairesTechnologyCancerChatbotsConversational agentsHealthcarePatientsVirtual assistants (VAs)

Identifiers

PMID35804356
PMCPMC9270807
OpenAlexW4284965683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.