The Technology Acceptance Model for Resource-Limited Settings (TAM-RLS): A Novel Framework for Mobile Health Interventions Targeted to Low-Literacy End-Users in Resource-Limited Settings
Tóm tắt
Although mobile health (mHealth) technologies have shown promise in improving clinical care in resource-limited settings (RLS), they are infrequently brought to scale. One limitation to the success of many mHealth interventions is inattention to end-user acceptability, which is an important predictor of technology adoption. We conducted in-depth interviews with 43 people living with HIV in rural Uganda who had participated in a clinical trial of a short messaging system (SMS)-based intervention designed to prompt return to clinic after an abnormal laboratory test. Interviews focused on established features of technology acceptance models, including perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, and included open-ended questions to gain insight into unexplored issues related to the intervention’s acceptability. We used conventional (inductive) and direct content analysis to derive categories describing use behaviors and acceptability. Interviews guided development of a proposed conceptual framework, the technology acceptance model for resource-limited settings (TAM-RLS). This framework incorporates both classic technology acceptance model categories as well as novel factors affecting use in this setting. Participants described how SMS message language, phone characteristics, and experience with similar technologies contributed to the system’s ease of use. Perceived usefulness was shaped by the perception that the system led to augmented HIV care services and improved access to social support from family and colleagues. Emergent themes specifically related to mHealth acceptance among PLWH in Uganda included (1) the importance of confidentiality, disclosure, and stigma, and (2) the barriers and facilitators downstream from the intervention that impacted achievement of the system’s target outcome. The TAM-RLS is a proposed model of mHealth technology acceptance based upon end-user experiences in rural Uganda. Although the proposed model requires validation, the TAM-RLS may serve as a useful tool to guide design and implementation of mHealth interventions.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Statistics. ITU. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx. (2015). Accessed 18 June 2016.
Qiang CZYM, Hausman V, Altman D. Mobile applications for the health sector. Washington: World Bank; 2011.
Campbell JI, Haberer JE. Cell phone-based and adherence device technologies for HIV care and treatment in resource-limited settings: recent advances. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2015;12(4):523–31.
Tomlinson M, Rotheram-Borus MJ, Swartz L, Tsai AC. Scaling up mHealth: where is the evidence? PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001382.
Haberer JE, Kiwanuka J, Nansera D, Wilson IB, Bangsberg DR. Challenges in using mobile phones for collection of antiretroviral therapy adherence data in a resource-limited setting. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(6):1294–301.
Chib A, van Velthoven MH, Car J. mHealth adoption in low-resource environments: a review of the use of mobile healthcare in developing countries. J Health Commun. 2015;20(1):4–34.
Chaiyachati KH, Loveday M, Lorenz S, et al. A pilot study of an mHealth application for healthcare workers: poor uptake despite high reported acceptability at a rural South African community-based MDR-TB treatment program. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e64662.
Briscoe C, Aboud F. Behaviour change communication targeting four health behaviours in developing countries: a review of change techniques. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(4):612–21.
Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform. 2010;43(1):159–72.
Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G, Davis F. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425–78.
Venkatesh V, Davis F. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci. 1997;46(2):186–204.
Davis F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319–40.
Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test*. Decis Sci. 1996;27(3):451–81.
Turner M, Kitchenham B, Brereton P, Charters S, Budgen D. Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol. 2010;52(5):463–79.
Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1992;22(14):1111–32.
Venkatesh V, Speier C, Morris MG. User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: toward an integrated model. Decis Sci. 2002;33(2):297–316.
Morris MG, Venkatesh V. Age differences in technology adoption decisions: implications for a changing work force. Pers Psychol. 2000;53(2):375–403.
Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci. 2000;46(2):186–204.
Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci. 2008;39(2):273–315.
Venkatesh V, Thong J, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012;36(1):157–78.
Hoque MR. An empirical study of mHealth adoption in a developing country: the moderating effect of gender concern. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):51.
Lee Y, Kozar KA, Larsen KRT. The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2003;12:50.
Horvath KJ, Alemu D, Danh T, Baker JV, Carrico AW. Creating effective mobile phone apps to optimize antiretroviral therapy adherence: perspectives from stimulant-using HIV-positive men who have sex with men. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2016;4(2):e48.
van Heerden A, Norris S, Tollman S, Richter L, Rotheram-Borus MJ. Collecting maternal health information from HIV-positive pregnant women using mobile phone-assisted face-to-face interviews in Southern Africa. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(6):e116.
Cenfetelli R. Inhibitors and enablers as dual factor concepts in technology usage. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2004;5(11):16.
Brown S, Fuller R, Vician C. Who’s afraid of the virtual world? Anxiety and computer-mediated communication. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2004;4(2):2.
Aranda-Jan CB, Mohutsiwa-Dibe N, Loukanova S. Systematic review on what works, what does not work and why of implementation of mobile health (mHealth) projects in Africa. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:188.
Catalani C, Philbrick W, Fraser H, Mechael P, Israelski DM. mHealth for HIV treatment and prevention: a systematic review of the literature. Open AIDS J. 2013;7:17–41.
Siedner MJ, Haberer JE, Bwana MB, Ware NC, Bangsberg DR. High acceptability for cell phone text messages to improve communication of laboratory results with HIV-infected patients in rural Uganda: a cross-sectional survey study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:56.
Siedner MJ, Santorino D, Haberer JE, Bangsberg DR. Know your audience: predictors of success for a patient-centered texting app to augment linkage to HIV care in rural Uganda. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(3):e78.
Siedner MJ, Santorino D, Lankowski AJ, et al. A combination SMS and transportation reimbursement intervention to improve HIV care following abnormal CD4 test results in rural Uganda: a prospective observational cohort study. BMC Med. 2015;13:160.
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.
Schnall R, Bakken S. Testing the technology acceptance model: hIV case managers’ intention to use a continuity of care record with context-specific links. Inf Health Soc Care. 2011;36(3):161–72.
Lai TY, Larson EL, Rockoff ML, Bakken S. User acceptance of HIV TIDES–tailored interventions for management of depressive symptoms in persons living with HIV/AIDS. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2008;15(2):217–26.
Brown W 3rd, Yen PY, Rojas M, Schnall R. Assessment of the health IT usability evaluation model (Health-ITUEM) for evaluating mobile health (mHealth) technology. J Biomed Inform. 2013;46(6):1080–7.
Mohamed AHHM, Tawfik H, Al-Jumeily D, Norton L. MoHTAM: a technology acceptance model for mobile health applications. Paper presented at: Developments in E-systems Engineering (DeSE); 2011.
Chang LW, Njie-Carr V, Kalenge S, Kelly JF, Bollinger RC, Alamo-Talisuna S. Perceptions and acceptability of mHealth interventions for improving patient care at a community-based HIV/AIDS clinic in Uganda: a mixed methods study. AIDS Care. 2013;25(7):874–80.
Safren SA, Kumarasamy N, Hosseinipour M, et al. Perceptions about the acceptability of assessments of HIV medication adherence in Lilongwe, Malawi and Chennai, India. AIDS Behav. 2006;10(4):443–50.
Chan BT, Weiser SD, Boum Y, et al. Persistent HIV-related stigma in rural Uganda during a period of increasing HIV incidence despite treatment expansion. Aids. 2015;29(1):83–90.
Valdez RS, Holden RJ, Novak LL, Veinot TC. Transforming consumer health informatics through a patient work framework: connecting patients to context. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(1):2–10.
Bezabhe WM, Chalmers L, Bereznicki LR, Peterson GM, Bimirew MA, Kassie DM. Barriers and facilitators of adherence to antiretroviral drug therapy and retention in care among adult HIV-positive patients: a qualitative study from Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97353.
Dahab M, Charalambous S, Hamilton R, et al. “That is why I stopped the ART”: patients’ and providers’ perspectives on barriers to and enablers of HIV treatment adherence in a South African workplace programme. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:63.
Schnall R, Higgins T, Brown W, Carballo-Dieguez A, Bakken S. Trust, perceived risk, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness as factors related to mHealth technology use. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;216:467–71.
Tuller DM, Bangsberg DR, Senkungu J, Ware NC, Emenyonu N, Weiser SD. Transportation costs impede sustained adherence and access to HAART in a clinic population in southwestern Uganda: a qualitative study. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(4):778–84.
Mills EJ, Nachega JB, Bangsberg DR, et al. Adherence to HAART: a systematic review of developed and developing nation patient-reported barriers and facilitators. PLoS Med. 2006;3(11):e438.
Siedner MJ, Lankowski A, Tsai AC, et al. GPS-measured distance to clinic, but not self-reported transportation factors, are associated with missed HIV clinic visits in rural Uganda. Aids. 2013;27(9):1503–8.
Lankowski AJ, Siedner MJ, Bangsberg DR, Tsai AC. Impact of geographic and transportation-related barriers on HIV outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(7):1199–223.
Duff P, Kipp W, Wild TC, Rubaale T, Okech-Ojony J. Barriers to accessing highly active antiretroviral therapy by HIV-positive women attending an antenatal clinic in a regional hospital in western Uganda. J Int AIDS Soc. 2010;13:37.
Holden RJ. What stands in the way of technology-mediated patient safety improvements?: a study of facilitators and barriers to physicians’ use of electronic health records. J Patient Saf. 2011;7(4):193–203.
Delone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manag Inform Syst. 2003;19(4):9–30.
Holden RJ, Brown RL, Scanlon MC, Karsh BT. Modeling nurses’ acceptance of bar coded medication administration technology at a pediatric hospital. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(6):1050–8.
Kingori P. Experiencing everyday ethics in context: frontline data collectors perspectives and practices of bioethics. Soc Sci Med. 2013;98:361–70.
Muessig KE, Nekkanti M, Bauermeister J, Bull S, Hightow-Weidman LB. A systematic review of recent smartphone, Internet and Web 2.0 interventions to address the HIV continuum of care. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2015;12(1):173–90.
Mitchell JW, Torres MB, Joe J, Danh T, Gass B, Horvath KJ. Formative work to develop a tailored HIV testing smartphone app for diverse, at-risk, HIV-negative men who have sex with men: a focus group study. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2016;4(4):e128.
Goldenberg T, McDougal JS, Sullivan SP, Stekler DJ, Stephenson R. Preferences for a mobile HIV prevention app for men who have sex with men. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2014;2(4):e47.