Cited by 320Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth, Technology, Consumer BehaviorTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Technology Acceptance in Mobile Health: Scoping Review of Definitions, Models, and Measurement

Open access
Nadal, Camille, Sas, Corina, Doherty, Gavin·2020·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Designing technologies that users will be interested in, start using, and keep using has long been a challenge. In the health domain, the question of technology acceptance is even more important, as the possible intrusiveness of technologies could lead to patients refusing to even try them. Developers and researchers must address this question not only in the design and evaluation of new health care technologies but also across the different stages of the user's journey. Although a range of definitions for these stages exists, many researchers conflate related terms, and the field would benefit from a coherent set of definitions and associated measurement approaches. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to explore how technology acceptance is interpreted and measured in mobile health (mHealth) literature. We seek to compare the treatment of acceptance in mHealth research with existing definitions and models, identify potential gaps, and contribute to the clarification of the process of technology acceptance. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database for publications indexed under the Medical Subject Headings terms "Patient Acceptance of Health Care" and "Mobile Applications." We included publications that (1) contained at least one of the terms "acceptability," "acceptance," "adoption," "accept," or "adopt"; and (2) defined the term. The final corpus included 68 relevant studies. RESULTS: Several interpretations are associated with technology acceptance, few consistent with existing definitions. Although the literature has influenced the interpretation of the concept, usage is not homogeneous, and models are not adapted to populations with particular needs. The prevalence of measurement by custom surveys suggests a lack of standardized measurement tools. CONCLUSIONS: Definitions from the literature were published separately, which may contribute to inconsistent usage. A definition framework would bring coherence to the reporting of results, facilitating the replication and comparison of studies. We propose the Technology Acceptance Lifecycle, consolidating existing definitions, articulating the different stages of technology acceptance, and providing an explicit terminology. Our findings illustrate the need for a common definition and measurement framework and the importance of viewing technology acceptance as a staged process, with adapted measurement methods for each stage.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/17256

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The process of accepting a technology resembles a life cycle, with preconceptions of a technology being an essential part of this life cycle as they play a role in whether the participant will eventually adopt the technology.

    “This is in line with existing research suggesting that the process of accepting a technology resembles a life cycle, with preconceptions of a technology being an essential part of this life cycle as they play a role in whether the participant will eventually adopt the technology [18].”

    From Older Adults’ Experiences and Perceptions of Immersive Virtual Reality: Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis (2022) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Discussion’s “Technology Acceptance Lifecycle” section (page unavailable) proposes a progression from preuse acceptability through initial and sustained use to adoption. The Introduction’s “Background” section (page unavailable) describes preuse perceptions, but the paper does not establish that those preconceptions determine eventual adoption; it says further research is needed on factors influencing the stages. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Acceptability is a key determinant of whether a technology will be adopted in the future.

    “Exploring further why exactly participants find IVR acceptable is important in future research as it is now considered a key determinant of whether a technology will be adopted in the future [18].”

    From Older Adults’ Experiences and Perceptions of Immersive Virtual Reality: Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis (2022) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Introduction > Background describes acceptability as a prospective judgment and notes that some studies use it to mean willingness or intention to use a system. That supports a connection to future adoption, but the review does not establish acceptability as a key determinant of whether adoption will occur; it cautions that trying an application does not necessarily lead to long-term use. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Acceptability is now considered a key factor in determining whether a technology will be adopted and used by the intended user.

    “It also offers the opportunity to explore more deeply whether the end user finds a technology acceptable—which is now considered a key factor in determining whether a technology will be adopted and used by the intended user [18].”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Coman, A, 2016, Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Series VII: Social Sciences and Law, 9, 73
  2. AdellEAcceptance of driver support systems2010Proceedings of the European conference on human centred design for intelligent transport systems2010Berlin, Germany475486
  3. AcceptabilityCambridge Dictionary - Cambridge University Press20202020-05-21https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/acceptability
  4. AcceptanceCambridge Dictionary - Cambridge University Press20202020-05-21https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/acceptance
  5. ConnellyKOn Developing a Technology Acceptance Model for Pervasive Computing. 9th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing -Workshop of Ubiquitous System Evaluation (USE) New York, NYIn 9th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing - Workshop of Ubiquitous System Evaluation2007UBICOMPSeptember 2007Innsbruck, AustriaSpringer520
  6. Ofili, EO, 2018, Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc, 129, 215
  7. Yasini, M, 2016, Stud Health Technol Inform, 221, 13
  8. Wang, Y, 2016, Stud Health Technol Inform, 225, 889
  9. Fallah, M, 2017, Stud Health Technol Inform, 235, 68

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nadal, C., Sas, C., & Doherty, G.
Affiliations
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
Corresponding author
Nadal, Camille
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2020-07-06
Volume
22
Issue
7
Pages
e17256
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3024942079
Cited by
320
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 3
FWCI
6.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Science Foundation Ireland (13/RC/2106, 13/RC/2094)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (722022)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
technology acceptance, mobile health, technology acceptance model, technology adoption, measurement instruments, terminology, mobile health apps, user engagement
MeSH terms
Humans, Telemedicine, Biomedical Technology

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