nach oben

Universal Access in the Information Society

Erschienen in:

09.10.2020 | Long Paper

Identifying critical success factors for wearable medical devices: a comprehensive exploration

verfasst von: Mustafa Degerli, Sevgi Ozkan Yildirim

Erschienen in: Universal Access in the Information Society | Ausgabe 1/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

For healthy living, the successful use of wearable medical devices such as smartwatches, smart clothes, smart glasses, sports/activity trackers, and various sensors placed on a body is getting more important as benefits of these devices become apparent. Yet, the existing knowledge about the critical success factors for wearable medical devices needs to evolve and develop further. The main objective of this research is to distill salient constructs to enhance the successful use of wearable medical devices. Specifically, the study aims to identify factors, associated items, and interactions of the relevant factors. A questionnaire has been developed and deployed. The data were collected from 1057 people specifically chosen to represent a wide range of the population. Comprehensive and meaningful inferences have been drawn. Principally, as a fusion of factor analysis and path analysis, a partial least squares structural equation modeling approach consisting of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses has been applied. In order to assess internal generalization and to precisely identify additional constructs, quasi-statistics have been used. The analyses of data collected revealed 11 salient constructs with 39 items and 18 statistically significant relationships among these constructs. Consequently, composed of distilled constructs and their associations, a novel model with an explanatory power of 73.884% has been approved. Moreover, 13 additional factors were identified as a result of the applied quasi-statistics. This research is the first of its kind on account of its sample characteristics with applied comprehensive methodology and distilled results. This research contributes to the pertinent body of knowledge concerning the critical success factors for wearable medical devices with distilled results. These contributions notably advance the relevant understanding and will be beneficial for researchers and for developers in the field of wearable medical devices.

Vorheriger Artikel Factors affecting smartphone online activity use in South Korea: with a focus on the moderating effect of disability status

Nächster Artikel Semantic web technologies applied to software accessibility evaluation: a systematic literature review

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Bates, D.W., Cresswell, K.M., Wright, A., Sheikh, A.: The future of medical informatics. In: Key Advances in Clinical Informatics (pp. 293–300). Elsevier, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809523-2.00020-0

Page, T.: A forecast of the adoption of wearable technology. Int. J. Technol. Diffus. 6(2), 12–29 (2015). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJTD.2015040102CrossRef

Wright, R., Keith, L.: Wearable technology: if the tech fits, wear it. J Electr. Resour. Med. Libr. 11(4), 204–216 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2014.969051CrossRef

Reeder, B., David, A.: Health at hand: a systematic review of smart watch uses for health and wellness. J. Biomed. Inform. 63, 269–276 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2016.09.001CrossRef

Hemapriya, D., Viswanath, P., Mithra, V. M., Nagalakshmi, S., Umarani, G.: Wearable medical devices —design challenges and issues. In: 2017 International Conference on Innovations in Green Energy and Healthcare Technologies (IGEHT) (pp. 1–6). IEEE, (2017).https://doi.org/10.1109/IGEHT.2017.8094096

Fang, Y.-M., Chang, C.-C.: Users’ psychological perception and perceived readability of wearable devices for elderly people. Behav. Inf. Technol. 35(3), 225–232 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2015.1114145CrossRef

Jung, Y., Kim, S., Choi, B.: Consumer valuation of the wearables: the case of smartwatches. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63(2016), 899–905 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.040CrossRef

Chuah, S.H.-W., Rauschnabel, P.A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T., Lade, S.: Wearable technologies: the role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 65, 276–284 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.047CrossRef

Dehghani, M.: Exploring the motivational factors on continuous usage intention of smartwatches among actual users. Behav. Inf. Technol. 37(2), 145–158 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1424246MathSciNetCrossRef

10.

Araujo de Carvalho, I., Epping-Jordan, J., Pot, A.M., Kelley, E., Toro, N., Thiyagarajan, J.A., Beard, J.R.: Organizing integrated health-care services to meet older people’s needs. Bull. World Health Organ. 95(11), 756–763 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.16.187617CrossRef

11.

Do, H.M., Pham, M., Sheng, W., Yang, D., Liu, M.: RiSH: a robot-integrated smart home for elderly care. Robot. Auton. Syst. 101, 74–92 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2017.12.008CrossRef

12.

World Health Organization.: World report on ageing and health. Luxembourg (2015)

13.

Steven Kohn, M.: Wearable devices and personalized healthcare. Trends Cardiovasc. Med. 28(2), 151–152 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2017.09.001CrossRef

14.

Seshadri, D.R., Rowbottom, J.R., Drummond, C., Voos, J.E., Craker, J.: A review of wearable technology: moving beyond the hype: from need through sensor implementation. In: 2016 8th Cairo International Biomedical Engineering Conference (CIBEC) (pp. 52–55). IEEE, (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/CIBEC.2016.7836118

15.

Erdmier, C., Hatcher, J., Lee, M.: Wearable device implications in the healthcare industry. J. Med. Eng. Technol. 40(4), 141–148 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3109/03091902.2016.1153738CrossRef

16.

Lee, J., Kim, D., Ryoo, H.-Y., Shin, B.-S.: Sustainable wearables: wearable technology for enhancing the quality of human life. Sustainability 8(5), 466 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050466CrossRef

17.

Wu, J., Li, H., Cheng, S., Lin, Z.: The promising future of healthcare services: when big data analytics meets wearable technology. Inf. Manag. 53(8), 1020–1033 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.07.003CrossRef

18.

Hentschel, M.A., Haaksma, M.L., van de Belt, T.H.: Wearable technology for the elderly: underutilized solutions. Eur. Geriatr. Med. 7(5), 399–401 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurger.2016.07.008CrossRef

19.

Zheng, J., Shen, Y., Zhang, Z., Wu, T., Zhang, G., Lu, H.: Emerging wearable medical devices towards personalized healthcare. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Body Area Networks (pp. 427–431). ACM, (2013). https://doi.org/10.4108/icst.bodynets.2013.253725

20.

Haghi, M., Thurow, K., Stoll, R.: Wearable devices in medical internet of things: scientific research and commercially available devices. Healthc. Inform. Res. 23(1), 4 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2017.23.1.4CrossRef

21.

Aileni, R.M., Valderrama, A.C., Strungaru, R.: Wearable electronics for elderly health monitoring and active living. In: Ambient Assisted Living and Enhanced Living Environments (1st ed., pp. 247–269). Elsevier, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805195-5.00010-7

22.

Godfrey, A., Hetherington, V., Shum, H., Bonato, P., Lovell, N.H., Stuart, S.: From A to Z: wearable technology explained. Maturitas 113(April), 40–47 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.04.012CrossRef

23.

Li, H., Wu, J., Gao, Y., Shi, Y.: Examining individuals’ adoption of healthcare wearable devices: an empirical study from privacy calculus perspective. Int. J. Med. Inform. 88(555), 8–17 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.12.010CrossRef

24.

Cella, M., Okruszek, Ł., Lawrence, M., Zarlenga, V., He, Z., Wykes, T.: Using wearable technology to detect the autonomic signature of illness severity in schizophrenia. Schizophr. Res. 195, 537–542 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2017.09.028CrossRef

25.

Kumari, P., Mathew, L., Syal, P.: Increasing trend of wearables and multimodal interface for human activity monitoring: a review. Biosens. Bioelectr. 90, 298–307 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2016.12.001CrossRef

26.

Dehghani, M., Dangelico, R.M.: Smart wearable technologies: current status and market orientation through a patent analysis. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT) (pp. 1570–1575). IEEE, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIT.2017.7915602

27.

Kim, Y.K., Wang, H., Mahmud, M.S.: Wearable body sensor network for health care applications. In: Smart Textiles and Their Applications (pp. 161–184). Elsevier, (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100574-3.00009-6

28.

Liu, L., Stroulia, E., Nikolaidis, I., Miguel-Cruz, A., Rios Rincon, A.: Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: a systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 91, 44–59 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.04.007CrossRef

29.

Srizongkhram, S., Shirahada, K., Chiadamrong, N.: Critical factors for adoption of wearable technology for the elderly: case study of Thailand. In: 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) (pp. 1–9). IEEE, (2018). https://doi.org/10.23919/PICMET.2018.8481990

30.

Park, S., Chung, K., Jayaraman, S.: Wearables. In Wearable Sensors (pp. 1–23). Elsevier, (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-418662-0.00001-5

31.

Khosravi, P., Ghapanchi, A.H.: Investigating the effectiveness of technologies applied to assist seniors: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 85(1), 17–26 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.05.014CrossRef

32.

Qi, J., Yang, P., Min, G., Amft, O., Dong, F., Xu, L.: Advanced internet of things for personalised healthcare systems: a survey. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 41, 132–149 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2017.06.018CrossRef

33.

Beard, J.R., Officer, A., de Carvalho, I.A., Sadana, R., Pot, A.M., Michel, J.-P., Chatterji, S.: The world report on ageing and health: a policy framework for healthy ageing. Lancet 387(10033), 2145–2154 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00516-4CrossRef

34.

World Health Organization. (2019). Ageing and life-course - What is Healthy Ageing? Retrieved September 13, 2019, from https://www.who.int/ageing/healthy-ageing/en/

35.

Beard, J.R., Officer, A.M., Cassels, A.K.: The world report on ageing and health. Gerontologist 56(Suppl 2), S163–S166 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw037CrossRef

36.

Amado, C.A.F., São José, J.M.S., Santos, S.P.: Measuring active ageing: a data envelopment analysis approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 255(1), 207–223 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.04.048CrossRef

37.

Robbins, T.D., Keung, S.N.L.C., Arvanitis, T.N.: E-health for active ageing; a systematic review. Maturitas 114, 34–40 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.05.008CrossRef

38.

Sullivan, A.N., Lachman, M.E.: Behavior change with fitness technology in sedentary adults: a review of the evidence for increasing physical activity. Frontiers in Public Health, 4(Jan), (2017). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00289

39.

Muellmann, S., Forberger, S., Möllers, T., Bröring, E., Zeeb, H., Pischke, C.R.: Effectiveness of eHealth interventions for the promotion of physical activity in older adults: a systematic review. Prev. Med. 108, 93–110 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.12.026CrossRef

40.

Thompson, W.G., Kuhle, C.L., Koepp, G.A., McCrady-Spitzer, S.K., Levine, J.A.: “Go4Life” exercise counseling, accelerometer feedback, and activity levels in older people. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 58(3), 314–319 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2014.01.004CrossRef

41.

Jonkman, N.H., van Schooten, K.S., Maier, A.B., Pijnappels, M.: eHealth interventions to promote objectively measured physical activity in community-dwelling older people. Maturitas 113(March), 32–39 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.04.010CrossRef

42.

Cooper, C., Gross, A., Brinkman, C., Pope, R., Allen, K., Hastings, S., Goode, A.P.: The impact of wearable motion sensing technology on physical activity in older adults. Exp. Gerontol. 112, 9–19 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2018.08.002CrossRef

43.

Tocci, F.L., Morey, M.C., Caves, K.M., Deberry, J., Leahy, G.D., Hall, K.: Are older adults ready for wireless physical activity tracking devices? a comparison of commonly used tracking devices. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 64(1), 226–228 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13895CrossRef

44.

Kim, K., Gollamudi, S.S., Steinhubl, S.: Digital technology to enable aging in place. Exp. Gerontol. 88, 25–31 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2016.11.013CrossRef

45.

World Health Organization: Integrated Care for Older People. World Health Organization, Geneva (2017)

46.

World Health Organization. (2011). A handbook on how to implement mAgeing. Geneva: World Health Organization and International Telecommunication Union. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/ageing/health-systems/mAgeing/mAgeing-handbook-April2018.PDF?ua=1

47.

World Health Organization. (2017). Global strategy and action plan on ageing and health. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/ageing/WHO-GSAP-2017.pdf?ua=1%0Ahttp://www.who.int/ageing/WHO-GSAP-2017.pdf?ua=1

48.

Beard, J.R., Araujo de Carvalho, I., Sumi, Y., Officer, A., Thiyagarajan, J.A.: Healthy ageing: moving forward. Bull. World Health Organ. 95(11), 730–730A (2017). https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.203745CrossRef

49.

Nasir, S., Yurder, Y.: Consumers’ and physicians’ perceptions about high tech wearable health products. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 195, 1261–1267 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.279CrossRef

50.

Casselman, J., Onopa, N., Khansa, L.: Wearable healthcare: Lessons from the past and a peek into the future. Telemat. Inform. 34(7), 1011–1023 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.011CrossRef

51.

Kalantari, M.: Consumers’ adoption of wearable technologies: literature review, synthesis, and future research agenda. Int. J. Technol. Mark. 12(3), 274–306 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2017.089665CrossRef

52.

Pal, D., Funilkul, S., Charoenkitkarn, N., Kanthamanon, P.: Internet-of-things and smart homes for elderly healthcare: an end user perspective. IEEE Access 6, 10483–10496 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2808472CrossRef

53.

Chan, M., Estève, D., Fourniols, J.-Y., Escriba, C., Campo, E.: Smart wearable systems: current status and future challenges. Artif. Intell. Med. 56(3), 137–156 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2012.09.003CrossRef

54.

Mostaghel, R.: Innovation and technology for the elderly: systematic literature review. J. Bus. Res. 69(11), 4896–4900 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.049CrossRef

55.

Ward, R.: The application of technology acceptance and diffusion of innovation models in healthcare informatics. Health Policy Technol. 2(4), 222–228 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2013.07.002CrossRef

56.

Renaud, K., van Biljon, J.: Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly. In: Proceedings of the 2008 annual research conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT research in developing countries riding the wave of technology-SAICSIT ’08 (vol. 338, pp. 210–219). New York, USA: ACM Press, (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1456659.1456684

57.

Holden, R.J., Karsh, B.-T.: The technology acceptance model: Its past and its future in health care. J. Biomed. Inform. 43(1), 159–172 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002CrossRef

58.

Baig, M.M., GholamHosseini, H., Moqeem, A.A., Mirza, F., Lindén, M.: A systematic review of wearable patient monitoring systems—current challenges and opportunities for clinical adoption. J. Med. Syst. 41(7), 115 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-017-0760-1CrossRef

59.

Lunney, A., Cunningham, N.R., Eastin, M.S.: Wearable fitness technology: a structural investigation into acceptance and perceived fitness outcomes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 65, 114–120 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.007CrossRef

60.

Iqbal, M.H., Aydin, A., Brunckhorst, O., Dasgupta, P., Ahmed, K.: A review of wearable technology in medicine. J. R. Soc. Med. 109(10), 372–380 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076816663560CrossRef

61.

Gücin, N.Ö., Berk, Ö.S.: Technology acceptance in health care: An integrative review of predictive factors and intervention programs. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 195, 1698–1704 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.263CrossRef

62.

Or, C.K.L., Karsh, B.-T.: A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 16(4), 550–560 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2888CrossRef

63.

Legris, P., Ingham, J., Collerette, P.: Why do people use information technology? a critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 40(3), 191–204 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4CrossRef

64.

Gao, Y., Li, H., Luo, Y.: An empirical study of wearable technology acceptance in healthcare. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115(9), 1704–1723 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2015-0087CrossRef

65.

Lee, S.Y., Lee, K.: Factors that influence an individual’s intention to adopt a wearable healthcare device: the case of a wearable fitness tracker. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 129(February), 154–163 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.002CrossRef

66.

Park, E., Kim, K.J., Kwon, S.J.: Understanding the emergence of wearable devices as next-generation tools for health communication. Inf. Technol. People 29(4), 717–732 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2015-0096CrossRef

67.

Zhang, M., Luo, M., Nie, R., Zhang, Y.: Technical attributes, health attribute, consumer attributes and their roles in adoption intention of healthcare wearable technology. Int. J. Med. Inform. 108(August), 97–109 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.09.016CrossRef

68.

Marakhimov, A., Joo, J.: Consumer adaptation and infusion of wearable devices for healthcare. Comput. Hum. Behav. 76, 135–148 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.016CrossRef

69.

Deranek, K., Hewitt, B., Gudi, A., McLeod, A.: The impact of exercise motives on adolescents’ sustained use of wearable technology. Behav. Inf. Technol. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1720295CrossRef

70.

Kim, K.J., Shin, D.-H.: An acceptance model for smart watches. Internet Res. 25(4), 527–541 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-05-2014-0126CrossRef

71.

Adapa, A., Nah, F.F.-H., Hall, R.H., Siau, K., Smith, S.N.: Factors influencing the adoption of smart wearable devices. Int. J. Human. Comput. Interact. 34(5), 399–409 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1357902CrossRef

72.

Yang, H., Yu, J., Zo, H., Choi, M.: User acceptance of wearable devices: an extended perspective of perceived value. Telemat. Inform. 33(2), 256–269 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.007CrossRef

73.

Nelson, E.C., Verhagen, T., Noordzij, M.L.: Health empowerment through activity trackers: an empirical smart wristband study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 62, 364–374 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.065CrossRef

74.

Canhoto, A.I., Arp, S.: Exploring the factors that support adoption and sustained use of health and fitness wearables. J. Mark. Manag. 33(1–2), 32–60 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1234505CrossRef

75.

Li, J., Ma, Q., Chan, A.H., Man, S.S.: Health monitoring through wearable technologies for older adults: smart wearables acceptance model. Appl. Ergon. 75, 162–169 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.10.006CrossRef

76.

Koo, S.H., Fallon, K.: Explorations of wearable technology for tracking self and others. Fash. Text. 5(1), 8 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-017-0123-zCrossRef

77.

Pfeiffer, J., Von Entress-Fuersteneck, M., Urbach, N., Buchwald, A.: Quantify-me: consumer acceptance of wearable self-tracking devices. In: Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Information Systems (p. 99), (2016). https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2016_rp/99

78.

Cimperman, M., Makovec Brenčič, M., Trkman, P.: Analyzing older users’ home telehealth services acceptance behavior—applying an Extended UTAUT model. Int. J. Med. Inform. 90, 22–31 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.03.002CrossRef

79.

Karahoca, A., Karahoca, D., Aksöz, M.: Examining intention to adopt to internet of things in healthcare technology products. Kybernetes 47(4), 742–770 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/K-02-2017-0045CrossRef

80.

Mattila, AAE., Kaipainen, K., Miikka Ermes, PV.: Oiva—a mobile phone intervention for psychological flexibility and wellbeing. In: Designing for Wellness and Behavior Change. Association for Computing Machinery, (2012)

81.

Mattila, E., Parkka, J., Hermersdorf, M., Kaasinen, J., Vainio, J., Samposalo, K., Korhonen, I.: Mobile diary for wellness management—results on usage and usability in two user studies. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 12(4), 501–512 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/TITB.2007.908237CrossRef

82.

Salvi, D., Ottaviano, M., Muuraiskangas, S., Martínez-Romero, A., Vera-Muñoz, C., Triantafyllidis, A., Deighan, C.: An m-Health system for education and motivation in cardiac rehabilitation: the experience of heartcycle guided exercise. J. Telemed. Telec. 24(4), 303–316 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X17697501CrossRef

83.

Holzinger, A., Searle, G., Kleinberger, T., Seffah, A., Javahery, H.: Investigating usability metrics for the design and development of applications for the elderly. In: K. Miesenberger, J. Klaus, W. Zagler, & A. Karshmer (Eds.), Computers Helping People with Special Needs (vol. ICCHP 2008, pp. 98–105). Berlin, Heidelberg, (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70540-6_13

84.

Holzinger, A., Searle, G., Wernbacher, M.: The effect of previous exposure to technology on acceptance and its importance in usability and accessibility engineering. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 10(3), 245–260 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-010-0212-xCrossRef

85.

Wen, D., Zhang, X., Lei, J.: Consumers’ perceived attitudes to wearable devices in health monitoring in China: a survey study. Comput. Methods Progr. Biomed. 140, 131–137 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.12.009CrossRef

86.

Wu, J.-H., Wang, S.-C., Lin, L.-M.: Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: a structural equation model. Int. J. Med. Informatics 76(1), 66–77 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.06.006CrossRef

87.

Nascimento, B., Oliveira, T., Tam, C.: Wearable technology: What explains continuance intention in smartwatches? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 43, 157–169 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.017CrossRef

88.

Pal, D., Funilkul, S., Vanijja, V.: The future of smartwatches: assessing the end-users’ continuous usage using an extended expectation-confirmation model. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-018-0639-zCrossRef

89.

Dehghani, M., Kim, K.J., Dangelico, R.M.: Will smartwatches last? Factors contributing to intention to keep using smart wearable technology. Telemat. Inform. 35(2), 480–490 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.007CrossRef

90.

Hsiao, K.-L., Chen, C.-C.: What drives smartwatch purchase intention? perspectives from hardware, software, design, and value. Telemat. Inform. 35(1), 103–113 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.10.002CrossRef

91.

Wu, L.-H., Wu, L.-C., Chang, S.-C.: Exploring consumers’ intention to accept smartwatch. Comput. Hum. Behav. 64, 383–392 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.005CrossRef

92.

Choi, J., Kim, S.: Is the smartwatch an IT product or a fashion product? a study on factors affecting the intention to use smartwatches. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 777–786 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.007CrossRef

93.

Puri, A., Kim, B., Nguyen, O., Stolee, P., Tung, J., Lee, J.: User acceptance of wrist-worn activity trackers among community-dwelling older adults: mixed method study. JMIR mHealth uHealth 5(11), e173 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.8211CrossRef

94.

Preusse, K.C., Mitzner, T.L., Fausset, C.B., Rogers, W.A.: Older adults’ acceptance of activity trackers. J. Appl. Gerontol. 36(2), 127–155 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464815624151CrossRef

95.

Heart, T., Kalderon, E.: Older adults: are they ready to adopt health-related ICT? Int. J. Med. Inform. 82(11), e209–e231 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.03.002CrossRef

96.

Golant, S.M.: A theoretical model to explain the smart technology adoption behaviors of elder consumers (Elderadopt). J. Aging Stud. 42, 56–73 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2017.07.003CrossRef

97.

Massa, P., Mazzali, A., Zampini, J., Zancanaro, M.: Quantify yourself: Are older adults ready? In: Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering (vol. 426, pp. 377–389), (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54283-6_27

98.

Jeong, S.C., Kim, S.-H., Park, J.Y., Choi, B.: Domain-specific innovativeness and new product adoption: a case of wearable devices. Telemat. Inform. 34(5), 399–412 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.09.001CrossRef

99.

Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989). https://doi.org/10.2307/249008CrossRef

100.

Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926CrossRef

101.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540CrossRef

102.

Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Dec. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.xCrossRef

103.

Hung, M.-C., Jen, W.-Y.: The adoption of mobile health management services: an empirical study. J. Med. Syst. 36(3), 1381–1388 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-010-9600-2CrossRef

104.

Macedo, I.M.: Predicting the acceptance and use of information and communication technology by older adults: an empirical examination of the revised UTAUT2. Comput. Hum. Behav. 75, 935–948 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.013CrossRef

105.

Hoque, R., Sorwar, G.: Understanding factors influencing the adoption of mHealth by the elderly: an extension of the UTAUT model. Int. J. Med. Inform. 101, 75–84 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.02.002CrossRef

106.

Ziefle, M.Z., Röcker, C., Holzinger, A.: Perceived usefulness of assistive technologies and electronic services for ambient assisted living. In: Proceedings of the 5th International ICST Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (pp. 585–592). IEEE, (2011). https://doi.org/10.4108/icst.pervasivehealth.2011.246044

107.

Ziefle, M., Klack, L., Wilkowska, W., Holzinger, A.: Acceptance of telemedical treatments – a medical professional point of view. In: S. Yamamoto (Ed.), Human Interface and the Management of Information. Information and Interaction for Health, Safety, Mobility and Complex Environments (vol. LNCS 8017, pp. 325–334). Berlin, Heidelberg, (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39215-3_39

108.

Holzinger, A., Searle, G., Pruckner, S., Steinbach-Nordmann, S., Kleinberger, T., Hirt, E., Temnitzer, J.: Perceived usefulness among elderly people: experiences and lessons learned during the evaluation of a wrist device. In: Proceedings of the 4th International ICST Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare. IEEE, (2010). https://doi.org/10.4108/ICST.PERVASIVEHEALTH2010.8912

109.

Sezgin, E., Özkan-Yildirim, S., Yildirim, S.: Investigation of physicians’ awareness and use of mHealth apps: a mixed method study. Health Policy Technol. 6(3), 251–267 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2017.07.007CrossRef

110.

Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–211 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TCrossRef

111.

Peek, S.T.M., Luijkx, K.G., Rijnaard, M.D., Nieboer, M.E., van der Voort, C.S., Aarts, S., Wouters, E.J.M.: Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology 62(2), 226–237 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1159/000430949CrossRef

112.

Hussein, Z., Oon, S.W., Fikry, A.: Consumer attitude: does it influencing the intention to use mHealth? Proc. Comput. Sci. 105, 340–344 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.01.231CrossRef

113.

van Hoof, J., Kort, H.S.M., Rutten, P.G.S., Duijnstee, M.S.H.: Ageing-in-place with the use of ambient intelligence technology: perspectives of older users. Int. J. Med. Inform. 80(5), 310–331 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.02.010CrossRef

114.

Motti, V.G., Caine, K.: Users’ privacy concerns about wearables. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (vol. 8976, pp. 231–244), (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48051-9_17

115.

Seneviratne, S., Hu, Y., Nguyen, T., Lan, G., Khalifa, S., Thilakarathna, K., Seneviratne, A.: A Survey of wearable devices and challenges. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 19(4), 2573–2620 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2017.2731979CrossRef

116.

Al-Janabi, S., Al-Shourbaji, I., Shojafar, M., Shamshirband, S.: Survey of main challenges (security and privacy) in wireless body area networks for healthcare applications. Egypt. Inform. J. 18(2), 113–122 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eij.2016.11.001CrossRef

117.

Zhang, Y., Rau, P.-L.P.: Playing with multiple wearable devices: Exploring the influence of display, motion and gender. Comput. Hum. Behav. 50, 148–158 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.004CrossRef

118.

Chen, K., Chan, A.H.S.: Gerontechnology acceptance by elderly Hong Kong Chinese: a senior technology acceptance model (STAM). Ergonomics 57(5), 635–652 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.895855CrossRef

119.

Luijkx, K., Peek, S., Wouters, E.: “Grandma, you should do it—it’s cool” older sdults and the role of family members in their acceptance of technology. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12(12), 15470–15485 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph121214999CrossRef

120.

Stragier, J., Vanden Abeele, M., Mechant, P., De Marez, L.: Understanding persistence in the use of online fitness communities: comparing novice and experienced users. Comput. Hum. Behav. 64, 34–42 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.013CrossRef

121.

Beaudry, A., Pinsonneaul, A.: The other side of acceptance: studying the direct and indirect effects of emotions on information technology use. MIS Q. 34(4), 689 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2307/25750701CrossRef

122.

Vincent, C.J., Li, Y., Blandford, A.: Integration of human factors and ergonomics during medical device design and development: it’s all about communication. Appl. Ergon. 45(3), 413–419 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.05.009CrossRef

123.

Patel, A.D., Moss, R., Rust, S.W., Patterson, J., Strouse, R., Gedela, S., Lin, S.M.: Patient-centered design criteria for wearable seizure detection devices. Epilepsy. Behav. 64, 116–121 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.09.012CrossRef

124.

Holden, R.J., Kulanthaivel, A., Purkayastha, S., Goggins, K.M., Kripalani, S.: Know thy eHealth user: development of biopsychosocial personas from a study of older adults with heart failure. Int. J. Med. Inform. 108, 158–167 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.10.006CrossRef

125.

Kim, K.J.: Shape and size matter for smartwatches: effects of screen shape, screen size, and presentation mode in wearable communication. J. Comput. Med. Commun. 22(3), 124–140 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12186CrossRef

126.

Shieh, M.-D., Hsiao, H.-C., Lin, Y.-H., Lin, J.-Y.: A study of the elderly people’s perception of wearable device forms. J. Interdiscip. Math. 20(3), 789–804 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/09720502.2016.1258839CrossRef

127.

Privitera, M.B., Evans, M., Southee, D.: Human factors in the design of medical devices —approaches to meeting international standards in the European Union and USA. Appl. Ergon. 59, 251–263 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.034CrossRef

128.

Hagedorn, T.J., Krishnamurty, S., Grosse, I.R.: An information model to support user-centered design of medical devices. J. Biomed. Inform. 62, 181–194 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2016.07.010CrossRef

129.

Ogbanufe, O., Gerhart, N.: Watch it! factors driving continued feature use of the smartwatch. Int. J. Human Comput. Interact. 34(11), 999–1014 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1404779CrossRef

130.

Kimberlin, C.L., Winterstein, A.G.: Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 65(23), 2276–2284 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp070364CrossRef

131.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E.: Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Education Limited, Essex (2014)

132.

Hox, J.J., Bechger, T.M.: An introduction to structural equation modeling. Family Sci. Rev. 11, 354–373 (1998)

133.

Weston, R., Gore, P.A.: A brief guide to structural equation modeling. Couns. Psychol. 34(5), 719–751 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345CrossRef

134.

Chin, W.W., Peterson, R.A., Brown, S.P.: Structural equation modeling in marketing: some practical reminders. J. Mark. Theory. Pract. 16(4), 287–298 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679160402CrossRef

135.

Wong, K.K.-K.: Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Mark. Bull. 24(1), 1–32 (2013)

136.

Oliver, G., Liehr-gobbers, K., Krafft, M.: Evaluation of structural equation models using the partial least squares (PLS) approach. In: V. Esposito Vinzi, W.W. Chin, J. Henseler, H. Wang (eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares (pp. 691–711) Springer, Berlin, (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8

137.

Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19(2), 139–152 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202CrossRef

138.

Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Mena, J.A.: An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40(3), 414–433 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6CrossRef

139.

Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Hair, J.F.: PLS-SEM: looking back and moving forward. Long Range Plan. 47(3), 132–137 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2014.02.008CrossRef

140.

Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, (2017)

141.

Lowry, P.B., Gaskin, J.: Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 57(2), 123–146 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452CrossRef

142.

Gefen, D., Rigdon, E.E., Straub, D.: An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Q. (2011). https://doi.org/10.2307/23044042CrossRef

143.

Matsunaga, M.: How to factor-analyze your data right: do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. Int. J. Psychol. Res. 3(1), 97–110 (2010)CrossRef

144.

Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., Strahan, E.J.: Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol. Methods 4(3), 272–299 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272CrossRef

145.

Myers, N.D., Ahn, S., Jin, Y.: Sample size and power estimates for a confirmatory factor analytic model in exercise and sport. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 82(3), 412–423 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599773CrossRef

146.

Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R., Sullivan, J.: Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)CrossRef

147.

Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S.: Using Multivariate Statistics (4th edn.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, (2001)

148.

Yong, A.G., Pearce, S.: A Beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 9(2), 79–94 (2013). https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079CrossRef

149.

Brown, J.D.: Choosing the right type of rotation in PCA and EFA. JALT Test Eval. SIG Newsl. 13(3), 20–25 (2009)

150.

Beavers, A.S., Lounsbury, J.W., Richards, J.K., Huck, S.W., Skolits, G.J., Esquivel, S.L.: Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Pract. Assess Res. Eval. 18, 6 (2013)

151.

O’Brien, R.M.: Identification of simple measurement models with multiple latent variables and correlated errors. Sociol. Methodol. 24(1994), 137–170 (1994). https://doi.org/10.2307/270981CrossRef

152.

Bollen, K.A.: Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53(1), 605–634 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135239CrossRef

153.

Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.-M.: SmartPLS. SmartPLS. Retrieved from www.smartpls.com, Bönningstedt (2015)

154.

Hulland, J.: Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J. 20(2), 195–204 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195:AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7CrossRef

155.

Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y.: On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16(1), 74–94 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327CrossRef

156.

Costello, A.B., Osborne, J.W.: Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess Res. Eval. 10(7), 1–9 (2005)

157.

Gefen, D., Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C.: Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. (2000). https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.00407CrossRef

Titel: Identifying critical success factors for wearable medical devices: a comprehensive exploration
verfasst von: Mustafa Degerli
Sevgi Ozkan Yildirim
Publikationsdatum: 09.10.2020
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Universal Access in the Information Society / Ausgabe 1/2022
Print ISSN: 1615-5289
Elektronische ISSN: 1615-5297
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00763-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2022

Toward Kinecting cognition by behaviour recognition-based deep learning and big data

Correction to: Can search result summaries enhance the web search efficiency and experiences of the visually impaired users?

A hybrid matchmaking approach in the ambient assisted living domain

Model-driven development of accessible software: a systematic literature review

Developing a pragmatic evaluation of ICTs for older adults with cognitive impairment at scale: the IN LIFE experience

Towards developing digital interventions supporting empathic ability for children with autism spectrum disorder

Premium Partner