Acceptance and Resistance of New Digital Technologies in Medicine: Qualitative Study
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study discusses the acceptance of new medical technologies in health care settings and resistance to these technologies from hospitals, doctors' surgical centers, electronic health (eHealth) centers, and related institutions. We suggest a novel method of identifying factors that influence the acceptance of, and resistance to, new technologies by medical staff and patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine and evaluate the factors that influence acceptance and resistance to achieve a successful implementation of new technologies. METHODS: The target group was patients residing in Brandenburg and major stakeholders in the local health care structure, for instance, medical institutions and medical professionals. The process relies on 3 models: the technology acceptance model, the unified technology acceptance and use of technology model, and the theory of technical innovation diffusion. Qualitative methodology was employed in this study, and an exploratory design was adopted to gain new insights into a poorly understood phenomenon in the German context. This enabled the researcher to take a flexible approach toward exploring a wide range of secondary data and to choose a different approach when unexpected information emerged. Content analysis was used to identify and interpret the data, and the researcher assured that the meaning associated with the information has concurred with that of the original source. RESULTS: This study confirmed that adoption of new technologies in health care depended on individual opinions of the factors relating to them. Some medical professionals believed that technology would interfere with their ability to make independent diagnoses and their relationships with patients. Doctors also feared that technology was a means of management control. In contrast, other medical staff welcomed technology because it provided them with more opportunities to interact with patients and their carers. Generally, patients were more enthusiastic about technology than medical professionals and health care managers because it allowed them to have greater autonomy in selecting health care options. The need for all groups to be involved in the development of the new health care approach was an important outcome, otherwise resistance to it was likely to be greater. In other words, the strategy for change management was the indicator of success or failure. Therefore, following our analysis, a number of practical precepts emerged that could facilitate user acceptance of digital solutions and innovative medical technologies. CONCLUSIONS: The acceptance of digital solutions and innovative medical technology by patients and professionals relies on understanding their anxieties and feelings of insecurity. The process will take time because individuals accept change at different rates. Hence, the development of an extensive user community to fully and successfully implement eHealth is less likely in the short term; however, this should not prevent the push for changes in health care technology.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Adoption of new health technologies depends on user perceptions, such as whether users trust the technology, find it easy to use, and feel that privacy and data security are respected.
“the adoption of new health technologies depends on user perceptions (eg, whether they trust the technology, find it easy to use, and feel that privacy and data security are respected) [23].”
From The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Conversational Agents in Health Care: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings
Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.1982.6447463 · Cited by 3,300 · see citing works
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-2286 · Cited by 2,566 · see citing works
Communications of the Association for Information Systems
(2017) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais · Cited by 1,612 · see citing works
Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Health Care
(2013) · doi:10.1002/9781118525975 · Cited by 506 · see citing works
McGinn, C. A., Grenier, S., Duplantie, J., Shaw, N., Sicotte, C., Mathieu, L., Leduc, Y., Légaré, F., & Gagnon, M.-P. (2011) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-9-46 · Cited by 393 · see citing works
Board on Health Sciences Policy, & Board on Health Care Services (2009) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/12458 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
McGinn, C. A., Gagnon, M., Shaw, N. T., Sicotte, C., Mathieu, L., Leduc, Y., Grenier, S., Duplantie, J., Abdeljelil, A. B., & Légaré, F. (2012) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-12-105 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Ernstmann, N., Ommen, O., Neumann, M., Hammer, A., Voltz, R., & Pfaff, H. (2009) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-008-9178-0 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Das Technologieakzeptanzmodell
Jockisch, M. (2010) · Gabler eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-8349-8484-5_11 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Engaging Patients with Digital Tools: What We Think We Know
Fox, B. I., & Felkey, B. G. (2014) · Hospital Pharmacy · doi:10.1310/hpj4910-992 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Identifying the Adoption Process for Electronic Health Services: A Qualitative Study
Ramtohul, I. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49012-9_15 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
(2001) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/s0736-5853(01)00002-8 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [10]Saunders M Lewis P Thornhill A Research Methods for Business Students. 7th edition 2015 Harlow Pearson
- [12]Miles M Huberman M Saldana J Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd edition 1999 Thousand Oaks, CA Sage
- [14]Gross D Akzeptanz, Nutzungsbarrieren und ethische Implikationen neuer Medizintechnologien: Die Anwendungsfelder Telemedizin und Inkorporierte Technik 2010 Germany kassel university press
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Conversational Agents in Health Care: Systematic Review
Milne-Ives, M., de Cock, C., Lim, E., Shehadeh, M. H., de Pennington, N., Mole, G., Normando, E., & Meinert, E. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/20346 · Cited by 626 · see citing works
Petersson, L., Larsson, I., Nygren, J. M., Nilsen, P., Neher, M., Reed, J. E., Tyskbo, D., & Svedberg, P. (2022) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08215-8 · Cited by 434 · see citing works
Lambert, S. I., Madi, M., Sopka, S., Lenes, A., Stange, H., Buszello, C.-P., & Stephan, A. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00852-5 · Cited by 404 · see citing works
Blockchain-Enabled Information Sharing Within a Supply Chain: A Systematic Literature Review
Wan, P. K., Huang, L., & Holtskog, H. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2980142 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Are physicians and medical students ready for artificial intelligence applications in healthcare?
AlZaabi, A., AlMaskari, S., & AalAbdulsalam, A. (2023) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/20552076231152167 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Determinant Factors of Public Acceptance of Stress Management Apps: Survey Study
Apolinário-Hagen, J., Hennemann, S., Fritsche, L., Drüge, M., & Breil, B. (2019) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/15373 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Held, L. A., Wewetzer, L., & Steinhäuser, J. (2022) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/14604582221112816 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Vijayakumar, S., Lee, V. V., Leong, Q. Y., Hong, S. J., Blasiak, A., & Ho, D. (2023) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/48476 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Ho, S., Doig, G. S., & Ly, A. (2022) · Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics · doi:10.1111/opo.13034 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Abdulhussein, F. S., Pinkney, S., Görges, M., van Rooij, T., & Amed, S. (2023) · JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · doi:10.2196/46432 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Orkaby, B., Kerner, E., Saban, M., & Levin, C. (2025) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-025-03034-8 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Enhancing early detection of cognitive impairment in primary care with the TabCAT-BHA
Breithaupt, A. G., Sideman, A. B., Goode, C., Hill‐Sakurai, L., Premkumar, M., Scheffler, A. W., Chodos, A., Tsoy, E., Rankin, K. P., Kramer, J. H., et al. (2025) · Alzheimer's & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.70437 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Integrating remote blood pressure monitoring into NHS primary care: a human factors perspective
Micocci, M., Butt, O., Zhou, S., El-Osta, A., Buckle, P., & Hanna, G. B. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1697787 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Safi, S., Thiessen, T., & Schmailzl, K. J.
- Affiliations
- Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane (DE)
- BSP Business & Law School – Hochschule für Management und Recht (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Safi, Sabur
- Venue
- JMIR Research Protocols
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2018-12-04
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e11072
- ISSN
- 1929-0748 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6299231
- OpenAlex
- W2898910479
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 7
- FWCI
- 17.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR Research Protocols (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
- Keywords
- technology acceptance, resistance to change, digital health technologies, eHealth implementation, medical professionals, patient acceptance, technology acceptance model, diffusion of innovation theory, change management, stakeholder engagement, medical autonomy, patient autonomy
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
