What factors determine therapists’ acceptance of new technologies for rehabilitation – a study using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
Open accessAbstract
Purpose The aim of this study was to examine what factors affect the acceptance behavior and use of new technologies for rehabilitation by therapists at a large rehabilitation hospital in Canada. Method A self-administrated paper-based survey was created by adapting scales with high levels of internal consistency in prior research using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly disagree (1)" to "strongly agree (7)". The target population was all occupational therapists (OT) and physical therapists (PT) involved with the provision of therapeutic interventions at the hospital. Our research model was tested using partial least squares (PLS) technique. Results Performance expectancy was the strongest salient construct for behavioral intention to use new technologies in rehabilitation, whereas neither effort expectancy nor social influence were salient constructs for behavioral intention to use new technologies; (4) facilitating condition and behavioral intention to use new technologies were salient constructs for current use of new technologies in rehabilitation, with facilitating condition the strongest salient for current use of new technologies in rehabilitation. Conclusion In a large rehabilitation hospital where use of new technologies in rehabilitation is not mandatory, performance expectancy, or how the technology can help in therapists' work, was the most important factor in determin…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587 · see citing works
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
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192 · Cited by 9,150 · see citing works
Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144 · Cited by 8,815 · see citing works
Modern Methods for Business Research
(1998) · doi:10.4324/9781410604385 · Cited by 6,534 · see citing works
Peng, D. X., & Lai, F. (2012) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2012.06.002 · Cited by 1,532 · see citing works
Schaper, L. K., & Pervan, G. P. (2007) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.028 · Cited by 371 · see citing works
A New Model for Predicting Behavioral Intentions: An Alternative to Fishbein
Warshaw, P. R. (1980) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378001700201 · Cited by 340 · see citing works
Health Care Provider Adoption of eHealth: Systematic Literature Review
Li, J., Talaei-Khoei, A., Seale, H., Ray, P., & MacIntyre, C. R. (2013) · interactive Journal of Medical Research · doi:10.2196/ijmr.2468 · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Vishwanath, A., & Scamurra, S. D. (2007) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/1460458207076468 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Duyck, P., Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Voet, T., Adang, L., Ovaere, D., & Vercruysse, J. (2010) · Journal of Digital Imaging · doi:10.1007/s10278-008-9163-7 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Psychotherapists’ attitudes toward online therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Békés, V., & Aafjes-van Doorn, K. (2020) · Journal of Psychotherapy Integration · doi:10.1037/int0000214 · Cited by 393 · see citing works
Hennemann, S., Beutel, M. E., & Zwerenz, R. (2017) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2017.1284286 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Aafjes-van Doorn, K., Békés, V., & Prout, T. A. (2021) · Counselling Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.1080/09515070.2020.1773404 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Gado, S., Kempen, R., Lingelbach, K., & Bipp, T. (2022) · Psychology Learning & Teaching · doi:10.1177/14757257211037149 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Békés, V., Aafjes-van Doorn, K., Luo, X., Prout, T. A., & Hoffman, L. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.705699 · Cited by 134 · 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
Hennemann, S., Witthöft, M., Bethge, M., Spanier, K., Beutel, M. E., & Zwerenz, R. (2018) · International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health · doi:10.1007/s00420-017-1280-5 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
mHealth applications: potentials, limitations, current quality and future directions
Messner, E.-M., Probst, T., O’Rourke, T., Stoyanov, S., & Baumeister, H. (2019) · Studies in neuroscience, psychology and behavioral economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-31620-4_15 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Rentrop, V., Damerau, M., Schweda, A., Steinbach, J., Schüren, L. C., Niedergethmann, M., Skoda, E.-M., Teufel, M., & Bäuerle, A. (2022) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/31229 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Sherrill, A. M., Wiese, C. W., Abdullah, S., & Arriaga, R. I. (2022) · Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science · doi:10.1007/s41347-022-00273-3 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“, 2003) and will be vital to implementing best practices in future clinical work (Liu et al., 2015).”
BackgroundJones, C., Miguel Cruz, A., Smith-MacDonald, L., Brown, M. R. G., Vermetten, E., & Brémault-Phillips, S. (2022) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/33681 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
- Authors
- Liu, L., Miguel Cruz, A., Rios Rincon, A., Buttar, V., Ranson, Q., & Goertzen, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
- Alberta Health Services (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Liu, Lili
- ORCID
- Liu, Lili
- Venue
- Disability and Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-06-05
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 447-455
- ISSN
- 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5165
- OpenAlex
- W2058212250
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 13.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Disability and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Greater South Information System
- Figshare (cc-by)
- Funders
- Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- technology acceptance, rehabilitation technology, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, UTAUT, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, behavioral intention, technology adoption, rehabilitation hospital, institutional support
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Canada, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Technology, Reproducibility of Results, Multivariate Analysis, Physical Therapists
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
