from the article: "In the Netherlands, housing corporations are increasingly adopting self-service technologies (SSTs) to support affairs their tenants need to arrange. The purpose of the study is to examine the customers’ motivations of using SSTs in the context of the Dutch public housing sector. An empirical investigation is presented based on a sample of 1,209 tenants. Using partial least squares (PLS), the acceptance model of Blut, Wang, and Schoefer is adopted and tested. The results show that especially the need for interaction negatively influence the adoption of SSTs by tenants. Positively, subjective norm and self-efficacy influence the adoption. Furthermore, playfulness negatively influences this adoption. Developers of SSTs should focus on its ulitalitarian function, rather then invest in its playfulness. Moreover, adoption is propelled by the encouragement of others. This can be enhanced by positive word-of mouth and should therefore stimulated."
Intention of healthcare providers to use video-communication in terminal care: a cross-sectional study. Richard M. H. Evering, Marloes G. Postel, Harmieke van Os-Medendorp, Marloes Bults and Marjolein E. M. den Ouden BMC Palliative Care volume 21, Article number: 213 (2022) Cite this articleAbstractBackgroundInterdisciplinary collaboration between healthcare providers with regard to consultation, transfer and advice in terminal care is both important and challenging. The use of video communication in terminal care is low while in first-line healthcare it has the potential to improve quality of care, as it allows healthcare providers to assess the clinical situation in real time and determine collectively what care is needed. The aim of the present study is to explore the intention to use video communication by healthcare providers in interprofessional terminal care and predictors herein.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, an online survey was used to explore the intention to use video communication. The survey was sent to first-line healthcare providers involved in terminal care (at home, in hospices and/ or nursing homes) and consisted of 39 questions regarding demographics, experience with video communication and constructs of intention to use (i.e. Outcome expectancy, Effort expectancy, Attitude, Social influence, Facilitating conditions, Anxiety, Self-efficacy and Personal innovativeness) based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographics and experiences with video communication. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to give insight in the intention to use video communication and predictors herein.Results90 respondents were included in the analysis.65 (72%) respondents had experience with video communication within their profession, although only 15 respondents (17%) used it in terminal care. In general, healthcare providers intended to use video communication in terminal care (Mean (M) = 3.6; Standard Deviation (SD) = .88). The regression model was significant and explained 44% of the variance in intention to use video communication, with ‘Outcome expectancy’ and ‘Social influence’ as significant predictors.ConclusionsHealthcare providers have in general the intention to use video communication in interprofessional terminal care. However, their actual use in terminal care is low. ‘Outcome expectancy’ and ‘Social influence’ seem to be important predictors for intention to use video communication. This implicates the importance of informing healthcare providers, and their colleagues and significant others, about the usefulness and efficiency of video communication.
MULTIFILE
Objective: To evaluate the delivery, acceptance and experiences regarding a traditional and teletreatment approach to mirror therapy as delivered in a randomized controlled trial. Design: Mixed methods, prospective study. Setting: Rehabilitation centres, hospital and private practices. Subjects: Adult patients with phantom pain following lower limb amputation and their treating physical and occupational therapists. Interventions: All patients received 4 weeks of traditional mirror therapy (n=51), followed by 6 weeks of teletreatment (n=26) or 6 weeks of self-delivered mirror therapy (n=25). Main measures: Patient files, therapist logs, log files teletreatment, acceptance questionnaire and interviews with patients and their therapists. Results: In all, 51 patients and 10 therapists participated in the process evaluation. Only 16 patients (31%) received traditional mirror therapy according to the clinical framework during the first 4 weeks. Between weeks 5 and 10, the teletreatment was used by 14 patients (56%) with sufficient dose. Teletreatment usage decreased from a median number of 31 (weeks 5–10) to 19 sessions (weeks 11–24). Satisfactory teletreatment user acceptance rates were found with patients demonstrating higher scores (e.g. regarding the usefulness to control pain) than therapists. Potential barriers for implementation of the teletreatment perceived by patients and therapists were related to insufficient training and support as well as the frequency of technical problems. Conclusion: Traditional mirror therapy and the teletreatment were not delivered as intended in the majority of patients. Implementation of the teletreatment in daily routines was challenging, and more research is needed to evaluate user characteristics that influence adherence and how technology features can be optimized to develop tailored implementation strategies.
