Clinical acceptance of a low-cost portable system for postural assessment
Abstract
The drive towards evidence-based practice in health-care requires changes in work practices and supporting technology. In response to the requirement to provide evidence, the current research proposes a new low-cost system for 3-D postural assessment. The aims of the study were (1) to assess the technology acceptance model (Davis 1993) for the new system and (2) to derive user requirements with user involvement early in the development process. A prototype system was developed and demonstrated to physiotherapists. Technology acceptance was assessed using standardized questions (Davis and Venkatesh 1996) and user needs were assessed with open-ended questions. Relations between the technology acceptance components confirmed findings of previous research, with perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness identified as pivotal factors in clinical acceptance, and implications for design were drawn. Specific user requirements for system development were derived from the qualitative results. The prospects for computer-aided quantitative assessment of posture are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some reviewed studies had participants who were nurses, physiotherapists, or occupational therapists.
“In a few studies, participants were nurses [102, 103], and physio- [104] or occupational [105] therapists.”
From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [104]
Most reviewed studies began with TAM as a conceptual framework and either removed or added predictor variables.
“Most studies began with TAM as a conceptual framework and removed [32, 102, 104] or added predictor variables [49, 96, 98, 100, 101, 103, 106, 107, 109].”
From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [104]
Some reviewed studies incorporated health care-specific measures of usefulness, such as increased quality of care.
“Thus, some studies incorporate measures of increased quality of care [97, 106] and similar health care-specific measures of usefulness [32, 104].”
From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [104]
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
(1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 25,810 · see citing works
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · Cited by 25,709 · see citing works
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066 · see citing works
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 · Cited by 15,769 · see citing works
(1993) · Cited by 9,879 · see citing works
(1988) · Cited by 6,825 · see citing works
Venkatesh, V. (2000) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 · Cited by 6,664 · see citing works
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace <sup>1</sup>
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x · Cited by 6,231 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In various studies, Davis (Davis et al. 1989, Bagozzi et al. 1992, Davis et al. 1992, Davis 1993, Davis and Venkatesh 1996, Venkatesh and Davis 2000) formulated TAM as a statistical model and tested the model against data on the acceptance of several information technology products.”
MethodDavis, F. D. (1993) · International Journal of Man-Machine Studies · doi:10.1006/imms.1993.1022 · Cited by 4,754 · see citing works
The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction
Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (2018) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780203736166 · Cited by 4,103 · see citing works
The Usability Engineering Lifecycle
NIELSEN, J. (1993) · Usability Engineering · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-052029-2.50007-3 · Cited by 2,657 · see citing works
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (1997) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249720 · Cited by 2,242 · see citing works
The psychology of human-computer interaction
Rogers, Y. (1984) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/0003-6870(84)90205-9 · Cited by 1,970 · see citing works
Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V. (1996) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0040 · Cited by 1,421 · see citing works
Development and Test of a Theory of Technological Learning and Usage
Bagozzi, R. P., Davis, F. D., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872679204500702 · Cited by 896 · see citing works
Toward an Understanding of the Behavioral Intention to Use an Information System
Jackson, C. M., Chow, S., & Leitch, R. A. (1997) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01315.x · Cited by 757 · see citing works
The theory of planned behaviour and health behaviours.
Conner, M. T., & SPARKS, P. B. (1996) · Open University Press eBooks · Cited by 719 · see citing works
Lu‐Yao, G. L., Keller, R. B., Littenberg, B., & Wennberg, J. E. (1994) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/00004623-199401000-00003 · Cited by 696 · see citing works
Al-Gahtani, S. S., & King, M. (1999) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/014492999119020 · Cited by 519 · see citing works
User acceptance of microcomputer technology: An empirical test
Igbaria, M. (1993) · Omega · doi:10.1016/0305-0483(93)90040-r · Cited by 419 · see citing works
Getting around the task-artifact cycle
Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1992) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/146802.146834 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
Igbaria, M., Schiffman, S. J., & Wieckowski, T. J. (1994) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449299408914616 · Cited by 373 · see citing works
User involvement in the systems design process-a practical guide for users
Damodaran, L. (1996) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/014492996120049 · Cited by 373 · see citing works
Information Technology And Organisational Change
(2005) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203982952 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
Information Technology And Organisational Change
Eason, K. D. (1989) · doi:10.1201/9781482275469 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
Roberts, P., & Henderson, R. D. (2000) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/s0953-5438(98)00068-x · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Modeling technophobia: a case for word processing
Brosnan, M. (1999) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0747-5632(98)00020-x · Cited by 102 · see citing works
PARE, G., & ELAM, J. J. (1995) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449299508914635 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
A television/computer three-dimensional surface shape measurement system
Turner-Smith, A. R. (1988) · Journal of Biomechanics · doi:10.1016/0021-9290(88)90244-8 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Human-Computer Factors: A Study of Users and Information Systems
Smith, A. (1997) · McGraw-Hill Higher Education eBooks · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Hubona, G. S., & Cheney (1994) · doi:10.1109/hicss.1994.323465 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Evaluating system design features
Hubona, G. S., & Blanton, J. E. (1996) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0005 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
A structural equation model of job performance using a computer-based order entry system
Henry, J. W., & Stone, R. W. (1995) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449299508914643 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Involving users in the specification of functionality using scenarios and model-based evaluation
van Schaik, P. (1999) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/014492999118878 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002 · Cited by 2,669 · see citing works
A Systematic Review of the Technology Acceptance Model in Health Informatics
Rahimi, B., Nadri, H., Lotfnezhad Afshar, H., & Timpka, T. (2018) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1668091 · Cited by 688 · see citing works
Technology acceptance: a meta‐analysis of the TAM: Part 1
Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007) · Journal of Modelling in Management · doi:10.1108/17465660710834453 · Cited by 624 · see citing works
Using a modified technology acceptance model in hospitals
AGGELIDIS, V, & CHATZOGLOU, P. (2009) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.06.006 · Cited by 553 · see citing works
An investigation on physicians’ acceptance of hospital information systems: A case study
Chen, R.-F., & Hsiao, J.-L. (2012) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.05.003 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Voet, T., Adang, L., Vercruysse, J., & Duyck, P. (2008) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.3414/me0477 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Atwal, A., Money, A., & Harvey, M. (2014) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3723 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
DJ, B., P, V. S., DS, S., & WA, C. (2003) · Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine · doi:10.1080/14639230310001600452 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Van Schaik, P., Flynn, D., Van Wersch, A., Douglass, A., & Cann, P. (2004) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929041000669941 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Cognitive bias and decision aid use under stressful conditions
Phillips-Wren, G., Jefferson, T., & McKniff, S. (2019) · Journal of Decision Systems · doi:10.1080/12460125.2019.1643695 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Van Schaik, P., Bettany-Saltikov, J. A., & Warren, J. G.
- Affiliations
- Teesside University (GB)
- ORCID
- Warren, J. G.
- Venue
- Behaviour & Information Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-57
- ISSN
- 0144-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1362-3001
- OpenAlex
- W2025692555
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 6.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Behaviour and Information Technology (publishedVersion)
- TeesRep (Teesside University) (submittedVersion)
- Teesside University Research Portal (Teesside University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Keywords
- postural assessment, technology acceptance model, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, user requirements, user involvement in design, physiotherapists, clinical acceptability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
