JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Designing technologies that users will be interested in, start using, and keep using has long been a challenge. In the health domain, the question of technology acceptance is even more important as the possible intrusiveness of technologies could lead to patients refusing to even try them. Developers and researchers must address this question in the design and evaluation of new healthcare technologies, but also across the different stages of the user’s journey. Although a range of definitions for these stages exist, many researchers conflate related terms and the field would benefit from a coherent set of definitions and associated measurement approaches.

Objective:

This review aimed to explore how technology acceptance is interpreted and measured in the mobile health literature. We sought to compare the treatment of acceptance in mHealth research with existing definitions, identify potential gaps, and formulate a more precise and consolidated terminology.

Methods:

We searched the PubMed database for publications indexed under the MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms “Patient Acceptance of Health Care” and “Mobile Applications”. We included publications that 1) contained at least one of the terms ‘acceptability’, ‘acceptance’, ‘adoption’, ‘accept’ or ‘adopt’, and 2) define the term. The final corpus included 68 relevant papers.

Results:

Several interpretations are associated with technology acceptance, few consistent with existing definitions. While the literature has influenced interpretation of the concept, usage is not homogeneous, and models are not adapted to populations with particular needs. The prevalence of measurement by custom surveys suggests a lack of standardized measurement tools.

Conclusions:

The literature definitions were published separately which may contribute to inconsistent usage. A definition framework would bring coherence to the reporting of results, facilitating the replication and comparison of studies. We propose the Technology Acceptance Lifecycle, consolidating existing definitions, articulating the different stages of technology acceptance, and providing an explicit terminology. Our findings illustrate the need for a common definition and measurement framework and the importance of viewing technology acceptance as a staged process, with adapted measurement methods for each stage.