Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38551677›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of ageing2024

Informing existing technology acceptance models: a qualitative study with older persons and caregivers.

Nadine Andrea Felber, Wendy Lipworth, Yi Jiao Angelina Tian, Delphine Roulet Schwab, Tenzin Wangmo

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of ageing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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.

Nadine Andrea FelberInstitute of Biomedical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland. Nadine.felber@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8207-2996
Wendy LipworthDepartment of Philosophy, Macquarie University, 25B Wally's Walk, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia. wendy.lipworth@mq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0234-657X
Yi Jiao Angelina TianInstitute of Biomedical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2969-9655
Delphine Roulet SchwabLa Source, School of Nursing Sciences, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2537-4503
Tenzin WangmoInstitute of Biomedical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0857-0510

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung 407740_187464/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New technologies can help older persons age in place and support their caregivers. However, they need to be accepted by the end-users to do so. Technology acceptance models, such as TAM and UTAUT and their extensions, use factors like performance expectancy and effort expectancy to explain acceptance. Furthermore, they are based on quantitative methods. Our qualitative study investigates factors fostering and hindering acceptance among older persons and their caregivers for a variety of assistive technologies, including wearables, ambient sensors at home with and without cameras and social companion robots. The goal of this paper is twofold: On the one hand, it investigates the factors of technology acceptance models in a qualitative setting. On the other hand, it informs these models with aspects currently overlooked by them. The results reveal that performance expectancy and effort expectancy are relevant for acceptance. We also find that reliability, anxiety around technology and different social aspects have an influence on acceptance of assistive technology in aged care for all end-user groups. Our findings can be used to update current technology acceptance models and provide in-depth knowledge about the currently used factors.

Indexed as

Aged careCaregivingRobotsSensorsTechnologyWearables

Identifiers

PMID38551677
PMCPMC10980672

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.