Cited by 10Digital Mental Health InterventionsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Acceptance of smart sensing: a barrier to implementation—results from a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Terhorst, Yannik, Weilbacher, Nadine, Suda, Carolin, Simon, Laura, Messner, Eva-Maria, Sander, Lasse Bosse, Baumeister, Harald·2023·Frontiers in Digital Health

Abstract

Background Accurate and timely diagnostics are essential for effective mental healthcare. Given a resource- and time-limited mental healthcare system, novel digital and scalable diagnostic approaches such as smart sensing, which utilizes digital markers collected via sensors from digital devices, are explored. While the predictive accuracy of smart sensing is promising, its acceptance remains unclear. Based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, the present study investigated (1) the effectiveness of an acceptance facilitating intervention (AFI), (2) the determinants of acceptance, and (3) the acceptance of adults toward smart sensing. Methods The participants (N = 202) were randomly assigned to a control group (CG) or intervention group (IG). The IG received a video AFI on smart sensing, and the CG a video on mindfulness. A reliable online questionnaire was used to assess acceptance, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, social influence, and trust. The self-reported interest in using and the installation of a smart sensing app were assessed as behavioral outcomes. The intervention effects were investigated in acceptance using t-tests for observed data and latent structural equation modeling (SEM) with full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The behavioral outcomes were analyzed with logistic regression. The determinants of acceptance were analyzed with SEM. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were used to evaluate the model fit. Results The intervention did not affect the acceptance (p = 0.357), interest (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.42–1.32, p = 0.314), or installation rate (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.01–2.35, p = 0.294). The performance expectancy (γ = 0.45, p < 0.001), trust (γ = 0.24, p = 0.002), and social influence (γ = 0.32, p = 0.008) were identified as the core determinants of acceptance explaining 68% of its variance. The SEM model fit was excellent (RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.05). The overall acceptance was M = 10.9 (SD = 3.73), with 35.41% of the participants showing a low, 47.92% a moderate, and 10.41% a high acceptance. Discussion The present AFI was not effective. The low to moderate acceptance of smart sensing poses a major barrier to its implementation. The performance expectancy, social influence, and trust should be targeted as the core factors of acceptance. Further studies are needed to identify effective ways to foster the acceptance of smart sensing and to develop successful implementation strategies. Clinical Trial Registration identifier 10.17605/OSF.IO/GJTPH.

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 · 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1075266

Cites

74 of 74 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?

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: 2

  1. [37]Blut M Chong A Tsiga Z Venkatesh V. Meta-analysis of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): challenging its validity and charting a research agenda in the red ocean (March 16, 2021). J Assoc Inf Syst. (Forthcoming). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=383487234321961
  2. [62]Mayer RE. Multimedia learning. Multimed Learn. (2002) 41: 85– 139. 10.1016/S0079-7421(02)80005-6 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Terhorst, Y., Weilbacher, N., Suda, C., Simon, L., Messner, E.-M., Sander, L. B., & Baumeister, H.
Affiliations
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Terhorst, Yannik
Venue
Frontiers in Digital Health
Published
2023-07-13
Volume
5
Pages
1075266-1075266
ISSN
2673-253X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4384197557
Cited by
10
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5
FWCI
2.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
  • Universität Ulm
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
smart sensing, technology acceptance, UTAUT, psychiatric diagnosis, digital mental health, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, trust, social influence, facilitating conditions, smartphone sensors, digital markers, adults, video-based intervention, implementation barriers

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