CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth, Technology, Consumer BehaviorSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

What Is Being Used and Who Is Using It: Barriers to the Adoption of Smartphone Patient Experience Surveys

Open access
Ng, Denise, McMurray, Josephine, Wallace, James, Morita, Plinio·2019·JMIR Formative Research
DOI 10.2196/formative.9922PMC PMC6441859

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Smartphones are positioned to transform the way health care services gather patient experience data through advanced mobile survey apps which we refer to as smart surveys. In comparison with traditional methods of survey data capture, smartphone sensing survey apps have the capacity to elicit multidimensional, in situ user experience data in real time with unprecedented detail, responsiveness, and accuracy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the context and circumstances under which patients are willing to use their smartphones to share data on their service experiences. METHODS: We conducted in-person, semistructured interviews (N=24) with smartphone owners to capture their experiences, perceptions, and attitudes toward smart surveys. RESULTS: Analysis examining perceived risk revealed a few barriers to use; however, major potential barriers to adoption were the identity of recipients, reliability of the communication channel, and potential for loss of agency. The results demonstrate that the classical dimensions of perceived risk raised minimal concerns for the use of smartphones to collect patient service experience feedback. However, trust in the doctor-patient relationship, the reliability of the communication channel, the altruistic motivation to contribute to health service quality for others, and the risk of losing information agency were identified as determinants in the patients' adoption of smart surveys. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these findings, we provide recommendations for the design of smart surveys in practice and suggest a need for privacy design tools for voluntary, health-related technologies.

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/formative.9922

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.

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 first type of evaluation technique is focused on app related evaluation, including evaluation of specific app features or functionality.

    “The rst type is focused on app related evaluation, including evaluation of speci c app features or functionality [85], [91].”

    From Security and Privacy of mHealth Applications: A Scoping Review (2020) · cites this paper as [85]

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. [1]Richards T Montori VM Godlee F Lapsley P Paul D Let the patient revolution begin Br Med J 2013 05 14 346 f2614 10.1136/bmj.f2614 23674136 23674136 · DOI
  2. [2]Boulding W Glickman SW Manary MP Schulman KA Staelin R Relationship between patient satisfaction with inpatient care and hospital readmission within 30 days Am J Manag Care 2011 01 17 1 41 8 21348567 12805 21348567
  3. [3]Doyle C Lennox L Bell D A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness BMJ Open 2013 01 3 3 1 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570 23293244 bmjopen-2012-001570 PMC3549241 23293244 · DOI
  4. [4]Ahmed F Burt J Roland M Measuring patient experience: concepts and methods Patient 2014 7 3 235 41 10.1007/s40271-014-0060-5 24831941 24831941 · DOI
  5. [5]Price RA Elliott MN Zaslavsky AM Hays RD Lehrman WG Rybowski L Edgman-Levitan S Cleary PD Examining the role of patient experience surveys in measuring health care quality Med Care Res Rev 2014 10 71 5 522 54 10.1177/1077558714541480 25027409 1077558714541480 25027409 PMC4349195 · DOI
  6. [6]McMurray J McNeil H Lafortune C Black S Prorok J Stolee P Measuring patients' experience of rehabilitation services across the care continuum. Part I: a systematic review of the literature Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2016 01 97 1 104 20 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.08.407 26299752 S0003-9993(15)01073-4 26299752 · DOI
  7. [7]Miller G The smartphone psychology manifesto Perspect Psychol Sci 2012 05 7 3 221 37 10.1177/1745691612441215 26168460 7/3/221 26168460 · DOI
  8. [8]Tomlinson M Solomon W Singh Y Doherty T Chopra M Ijumba P Tsai AC Jackson D The use of mobile phones as a data collection tool: a report from a household survey in South Africa BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2009 9 51 10.1186/1472-6947-9-51 20030813 1472-6947-9-51 20030813 PMC2811102 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [9]McMurray J McNeil H Gordon A Elliott J Stolee P Building a rehabilitative care measurement instrument to improve the patient experience Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2019 01 100 1 39 44 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.05.022 29958901 S0003-9993(18)30381-2 29958901 · DOI
  10. [10]McMurray J McNeil H Gordon A Elliott J Stolee P Psychometric testing of a rehabilitative care patient experience instrument Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2018 09 99 9 1840 7 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.04.028 29852150 S0003-9993(18)30319-8 29852150 · DOI
  11. [12]Abernethy AP Herndon JE Wheeler JL Patwardhan M Shaw H Lyerly HK Weinfurt K Improving health care efficiency and quality using tablet personal computers to collect research-quality, patient-reported data Health Serv Res 2008 12 43 6 1975 91 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00887.x 18761678 HESR887 18761678 PMC2613994 · DOI
  12. [13]Green AS Rafaeli E Bolger N Shrout PE Reis HT Paper or plastic? Data equivalence in paper and electronic diaries Psychol Methods 2006 03 11 1 87 105 10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.87 16594769 2006-03820-006 16594769 · DOI
  13. [14]Marcano BJ Jamsek J Huckvale K O'Donoghue J Morrison CP Car J Comparison of self-administered survey questionnaire responses collected using mobile apps versus other methods Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015 07 27 7 MR000042 10.1002/14651858.MR000042.pub2 26212714 26212714 PMC8152947 · DOI
  14. [15]Ludford PJ Frankowski D Reily K Wilms K Terveen L Because I Carry My Cell Phone Anyway: Functional Location-based Reminder Applications Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2006 CHI'06 April 22-27, 2006 Montreal, Canada USA ACM 889 98 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1124903
  15. [16]Wang Y Perez-Quinones M Beyond "Geofencing": Specifying Location in Location-Based Reminder Applications Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2015 CHI EA'15 April 18-23, 2015 Seoul, South Korea USA ACM 1767 72
  16. [17]Pielot M Church K de Oliveira R An In-situ Study of Mobile Phone Notifications Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services 2014 MobileHCI'14 September 23-26, 2014 Toronto, Canada 233 42
  17. [19]Kuntsche E Labhart F Using personal cell phones for ecological momentary assessment Eur Psychol Internet 2013 18 1 3 11 10.1027/1016-9040/a000127 PMC3839619 24285917 · DOI
  18. [20]Smith H Dinev T Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review MIS Q 2011 35 4 989 1015 https://misq.org/information-privacy-research-an-interdisciplinary-review.html
  19. [21]Bauer RA Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World, Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the American Marketing Association 1960 43rd Conference of the American Marketing Association June 15-17, 1960 Chicago 389 98
  20. [23]Featherman MS Pavlou PA Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective Int J Hum Comput Stud 2003 10 59 4 451 74 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00111-3 · DOI · Paper page
  21. [24]Littler D Melanthiou D Consumer perceptions of risk and uncertainty and the implications for behaviour towards innovative retail services: the case of internet banking J Retail Cons Serv 2006 11 13 6 431 43 10.1016/j.jretconser.2006.02.006 · DOI
  22. [25]Iglesias-Pradas S Pascual-Miguel F Hernández-García Á Chaparro-Peláez J Barriers and drivers for non-shoppers in B2C e-commerce: a latent class exploratory analysis Comput Human Behav 2013 29 2 314 22 10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.024 · DOI · Paper page
  23. [27]da Chen L A model of consumer acceptance of mobile payment Int J Mob Commun 2008 6 1 32 10.1504/IJMC.2008.015997 · DOI
  24. [28]Lee MC Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: an integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit Electron Commer Res Appl 2009 05 8 3 130 41 10.1016/j.elerap.2008.11.006 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [30]Schnall R Higgins T Brown W Carballo-Dieguez A Bakken S Trust, perceived risk, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness as factors related to mHealth technology use Stud Health Technol Inform 2015 216 467 71 10.3233/978-1-61499-564-7-467 26262094 26262094 PMC5588863 · DOI
  26. [32]Westin AF Social and political dimensions of privacy J Soc Issues 2003 59 2 431 53 10.1111/1540-4560.00072 · DOI · Paper page
  27. [34]Consolvo S Smith IE Matthews T LaMarca A Tabert J Powledge P Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, & what people want to share Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2005 CHI'05 March 29-April 01, 2015 Atlanta, USA 81 90 10.1145/1054972.1054985 · DOI
  28. [35]King J CyLab Usable Privacy and Security Laboratory 2009 2019-01-31 Taken Out of Context: An Empirical Analysis of Westin’s Privacy Scale https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/2014/workshops/privacy/s1p1.pdf
  29. [36]Woodruff A Pihur V Consolvo S Schmidt L Brandimarte L Acquisti A Would a privacy fundamentalist sell their DNA for $1000... if nothing bad happened as a result? The Westin categories, behavioral intentions, and consequences Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security 2014 SOUPS 2014 July 9-11, 2014 Menlo Park, USA
  30. [37]Dupree JL Devries R Berry DM Lank E Privacy personas: Clustering users via attitudes and behaviors toward security practices Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2016 CHI'16 May 7-12 2016 San Jose, USA 5228 39 10.1145/2858036.2858214 · DOI
  31. [38]Dupree JL Lank E Berry DM A case study of using grounded analysis as a requirement engineering method: identifying personas that specify privacy and security tool users Sci Comput Program 2018 01 152 C 1 37 10.1016/j.scico.2017.08.010 · DOI
  32. [39]Morton A Sasse M Desperately seeking assurances: Segmenting users by their information-seeking preferences 2014 2014 Twelfth Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust July 23-24, 2014 Toronto, Canada 102 11 10.1109/PST.2014.6890929 · DOI
  33. [40]Reinau KH Harder H Weber M The SMS–GPS-Trip method: a new method for collecting trip information in travel behavior research Telecomm Pol 2014 39 3-4 363 73 10.1016/j.telpol.2014.05.006 · DOI
  34. [41]Kojo I Heiskala M Virtanen J Customer journey mapping of an experience-centric service by mobile self-reporting: Testing the Qualiwall tool 2014 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII 2014) June 22-26, 2014 Crete, Greece
  35. [42]Guest G Bunce B Johnson L How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability Field Methods 2006 02 1 18 1 59 82 10.1177/1525822X05279903 · DOI · Paper page
  36. [43]Morse JM Determining sample size Qual Health Res 2000 10 1 3 5 10.1177/104973200129118183 · DOI
  37. [45]Beatty PC Willis GB Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing Public Opin Q 2007 06 5 71 2 287 311 10.1093/poq/nfm006 S0308-8146(15)00613-5 · DOI · Paper page
  38. [46]Sandelowski M Reembodying qualitative inquiry Qual Health Res 2002 01 12 1 104 15 10.1177/1049732302012001008 11797919 11797919 · DOI
  39. [47]Fereday J Muir-Cochrane E Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development Int J Qual Methods 2016 11 29 5 1 80 92 10.1177/160940690600500107 10.1002/1096-8628(20000612)96:3<278::AID-AJMG8>3.0.CO;2-R · DOI · Paper page
  40. [48]Corbin J Strauss A Basics Of Qualitative Research: Techniques And Procedures For Developing Grounded Theory 2015 Thousand Oaks, USA Sage Publications
  41. [49]Creswell JW Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches 2003 Thousand Oaks, California Sage Publications Inc
  42. [50]Gkioulos V Wangen G Katsikas S Kavallieratos G Kotzanikolaou P Security awareness of the digital natives Information 2017 04 8 8 2 42 10.3390/info8020042 · DOI
  43. [51]Martínez-Pérez B de la Torre-Díez I López-Coronado M Privacy and security in mobile health apps: a review and recommendations J Med Syst 2015 01 39 1 181 10.1007/s10916-014-0181-3 25486895 25486895 · DOI
  44. [52]Braun R Catalani C Wimbush J Israelski D Community health workers and mobile technology: a systematic review of the literature PLoS One 2013 8 6 e65772 10.1371/journal.pone.0065772 23776544 PONE-D-13-00075 23776544 PMC3680423 · DOI · Paper page
  45. [53]Free C Phillips G Galli L Watson L Felix L Edwards P Patel V Haines A The effectiveness of mobile-health technology-based health behaviour change or disease management interventions for health care consumers: a systematic review PLoS Med 2013 10 1 e1001362 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001362 23349621 PMEDICINE-D-12-00520 23349621 PMC3548655 · DOI · Paper page
  46. [54]Ashar R Lewis S Blazes D Chretien J Applying information and communications technologies to collect health data from remote settings: a systematic assessment of current technologies J Biomed Inform 2010 04 43 2 332 41 10.1016/j.jbi.2009.11.009 19961957 S1532-0464(09)00155-5 19961957 · DOI
  47. [55]Boulos MG Wheeler S Tavares C Jones R How smartphones are changing the face of mobile and participatory healthcare: an overview, with example from eCAALYX Biomed Eng Online 2011 04 5 10 24 10.1186/1475-925X-10-24 21466669 1475-925X-10-24 21466669 PMC3080339 · DOI
  48. [56]Bryce J Fraser J The role of disclosure of personal information in the evaluation of risk and trust in young peoples’ online interactions Comput Human Behav 2014 01 30 299 306 10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.012 · DOI · Paper page
  49. [58]Becker M Understanding users' health information privacy concerns for health wearables Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2018 HCISS 2018 January 3-6, 2018 Hawaii, USA 3261 10.24251/hicss.2018.413 · DOI
  50. [59]Gefen D Karahanna E Straub D Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model MIS Q 2003 27 1 90 10.2307/30036519 · DOI · Paper page
  51. [60]Kim DJ Ferrin DL Rao HR A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: the role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents Decis Support Syst 2008 01 44 2 544 64 10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001 · DOI · Paper page
  52. [61]Tene O Polonetsky J Stanford Law Review 2010 2019-01-31 Privacy in the age of big data: a time for big decisions https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox-privacy-and-big-data/
  53. [62]Barkuhus L Dey AD Location-Based Services for Mobile Telephony: A Study of Users' Privacy Concerns 2003 IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction September 1-5, 2003 Zurich, Switzerland
  54. [63]Venkatesh V Davis FD A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies Manage Sci 2000 02 46 2 186 204 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · DOI · Paper page
  55. [64]Venkatesh V Morris M User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view MIS Q 2003 27 1 18 10.2307/30036540 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ng, D., McMurray, J., Wallace, J., & Morita, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • Wilfrid Laurier University (CA)
Corresponding author
McMurray, Josephine
ORCID
Venue
JMIR Formative Research
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2019-03-18
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
e9922
ISSN
2561-326X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/formative.9922
PMC
PMC6441859
OpenAlex
W2907673862
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Formative Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
SMART survey, mobile health, patient data sharing, technology adoption barriers, risk perception, physician-patient trust, communication channel reliability, information agencies, altruistic motivation, privacy by design

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