Cargando…

Acceptance of the Artificial Pancreas: Comparing the Effect of Technology Readiness, Product Characteristics, and Social Influence Between Invited and Self-Selected Respondents

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial factors that may affect acceptance of artificial pancreas (AP) systems have been investigated in small sample sizes of highly motivated, self-selected persons with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) with a focus on product characteristics. We aimed to develop a valid survey to investiga...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oukes, Tamara, Blauw, Helga, van Bon, Arianne C., DeVries, J. Hans, von Raesfeld, Ariane M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6955445/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30646756
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1932296818823728
_version_ 1783486934595665920
author Oukes, Tamara
Blauw, Helga
van Bon, Arianne C.
DeVries, J. Hans
von Raesfeld, Ariane M.
author_facet Oukes, Tamara
Blauw, Helga
van Bon, Arianne C.
DeVries, J. Hans
von Raesfeld, Ariane M.
author_sort Oukes, Tamara
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Psychosocial factors that may affect acceptance of artificial pancreas (AP) systems have been investigated in small sample sizes of highly motivated, self-selected persons with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) with a focus on product characteristics. We aimed to develop a valid survey to investigate the association of technology readiness and social influence with AP acceptance in a larger sample, including both self-selected and invited respondents with T1DM. METHODS: An online survey was developed based on established questionnaires. Intention to use the AP was chosen as measure of AP acceptance. T1DM patients who signed up themselves for scientific research into AP systems represented the self-selected group, while patients treated at a teaching hospital represented the invited group. Questionnaire values were compared using independent t-tests and regression analyses. RESULTS: The developed survey showed reliability and validity. The survey was completed by 425 self-selected and 109 invited persons. Intention to use the AP was high in both groups, but was significantly higher among self-selected respondents. In both groups, intention to use the AP was most strongly related to product compatibility, followed by product complexity, technology readiness, and product usefulness among invited respondents; and followed by product usefulness and technology innovativeness among self-selected respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Product characteristics have a stronger relationship with AP acceptance than technology readiness, while social influence does not seem to be associated with AP acceptance. As the (strength of) factors differ between self-selected and invited persons, researchers and product developers should be cautious when relying on self-selected persons with T1DM in the design, development, and testing of AP systems.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6955445
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69554452020-01-23 Acceptance of the Artificial Pancreas: Comparing the Effect of Technology Readiness, Product Characteristics, and Social Influence Between Invited and Self-Selected Respondents Oukes, Tamara Blauw, Helga van Bon, Arianne C. DeVries, J. Hans von Raesfeld, Ariane M. J Diabetes Sci Technol Original Articles BACKGROUND: Psychosocial factors that may affect acceptance of artificial pancreas (AP) systems have been investigated in small sample sizes of highly motivated, self-selected persons with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) with a focus on product characteristics. We aimed to develop a valid survey to investigate the association of technology readiness and social influence with AP acceptance in a larger sample, including both self-selected and invited respondents with T1DM. METHODS: An online survey was developed based on established questionnaires. Intention to use the AP was chosen as measure of AP acceptance. T1DM patients who signed up themselves for scientific research into AP systems represented the self-selected group, while patients treated at a teaching hospital represented the invited group. Questionnaire values were compared using independent t-tests and regression analyses. RESULTS: The developed survey showed reliability and validity. The survey was completed by 425 self-selected and 109 invited persons. Intention to use the AP was high in both groups, but was significantly higher among self-selected respondents. In both groups, intention to use the AP was most strongly related to product compatibility, followed by product complexity, technology readiness, and product usefulness among invited respondents; and followed by product usefulness and technology innovativeness among self-selected respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Product characteristics have a stronger relationship with AP acceptance than technology readiness, while social influence does not seem to be associated with AP acceptance. As the (strength of) factors differ between self-selected and invited persons, researchers and product developers should be cautious when relying on self-selected persons with T1DM in the design, development, and testing of AP systems. SAGE Publications 2019-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6955445/ /pubmed/30646756 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1932296818823728 Text en © 2019 Diabetes Technology Society http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Articles
Oukes, Tamara
Blauw, Helga
van Bon, Arianne C.
DeVries, J. Hans
von Raesfeld, Ariane M.
Acceptance of the Artificial Pancreas: Comparing the Effect of Technology Readiness, Product Characteristics, and Social Influence Between Invited and Self-Selected Respondents
title Acceptance of the Artificial Pancreas: Comparing the Effect of Technology Readiness, Product Characteristics, and Social Influence Between Invited and Self-Selected Respondents
title_full Acceptance of the Artificial Pancreas: Comparing the Effect of Technology Readiness, Product Characteristics, and Social Influence Between Invited and Self-Selected Respondents
title_fullStr Acceptance of the Artificial Pancreas: Comparing the Effect of Technology Readiness, Product Characteristics, and Social Influence Between Invited and Self-Selected Respondents
title_full_unstemmed Acceptance of the Artificial Pancreas: Comparing the Effect of Technology Readiness, Product Characteristics, and Social Influence Between Invited and Self-Selected Respondents
title_short Acceptance of the Artificial Pancreas: Comparing the Effect of Technology Readiness, Product Characteristics, and Social Influence Between Invited and Self-Selected Respondents
title_sort acceptance of the artificial pancreas: comparing the effect of technology readiness, product characteristics, and social influence between invited and self-selected respondents
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6955445/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30646756
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1932296818823728
work_keys_str_mv AT oukestamara acceptanceoftheartificialpancreascomparingtheeffectoftechnologyreadinessproductcharacteristicsandsocialinfluencebetweeninvitedandselfselectedrespondents
AT blauwhelga acceptanceoftheartificialpancreascomparingtheeffectoftechnologyreadinessproductcharacteristicsandsocialinfluencebetweeninvitedandselfselectedrespondents
AT vanbonariannec acceptanceoftheartificialpancreascomparingtheeffectoftechnologyreadinessproductcharacteristicsandsocialinfluencebetweeninvitedandselfselectedrespondents
AT devriesjhans acceptanceoftheartificialpancreascomparingtheeffectoftechnologyreadinessproductcharacteristicsandsocialinfluencebetweeninvitedandselfselectedrespondents
AT vonraesfeldarianem acceptanceoftheartificialpancreascomparingtheeffectoftechnologyreadinessproductcharacteristicsandsocialinfluencebetweeninvitedandselfselectedrespondents