ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Health Workers' Acceptance and Satisfaction on the Usability of the Digital Health Goods, in Kono District, Sierra Leone.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of the acceptability and usability of an integrated HIV-TB digital portal at anti-retroviral therapy centres in Odisha, India.Public health action · 2026Article
- Unlocking AI Chatbot Potential in Healthcare: Trust-Enhanced DeLone & McLean IS Success Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Bridging the gap between community health workers' digital health acceptance and actual usage in Uganda: Exploring key external factors based on technology acceptance model.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Digital health systems implementation in developing countries is increasing exponentially, and digital health interventions are essential tools to improve healthcare access and quality. In contrast, the evidence base is meager about the acceptance and satisfaction of end users towards digital health goods. Hence, this study aims to evaluate the acceptance and satisfaction of end users on the usability of digital goods in Sierra Leone. Methods: Health facility-based cross-sectional study design was employed, and a total of 151 participants were included. Data were collected using a validated data collection tool. Initially, descriptive data analysis was done. Finally, bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions were applied to identify predictors for user acceptance of digital health goods. Finally, findings are presented as AORs along with 95% CIs. Results: The study considered 151 respondents for analysis. In this study, 72.2% with 95% CI: 64.4-78.8% of respondents have good acceptance of the digital health systems. The findings revealed that 49.7% and 45.7% of respondents were strongly satisfied and satisfied, respectively. The regression analysis indicated that perceived ease of use [AOR=5.56; 95% CI: 2.17, 14.26], digital health system type [AOR=0.18, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.55], and frequency of digital system use [AOR=0.04; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.41] were predictors of user acceptance. The major barriers for successful implementation were inability to be used offline, being slow, and taking longer time to input information in the digital systems. Conclusion: End user acceptance and satisfaction with digital health goods were high. Perceived ease of use, digital system type, and frequency of using digital systems are predictors of user acceptance. Major barriers to digital systems implementation include inability to be used offline and taking longer time to input information in the systems. Long-term system acceptance could be achieved through addressing end user preference and potential barriers of implementation.
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.