MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065042683 · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-10-73

Stages of use: consideration, initiation, utilization, and outcomes of an internet-mediated intervention

2010· article· en· W2065042683 on OpenAlexafffund
Teresa Chiu, Günther Eysenbach

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Social Innovation
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlzheimer Society
KeywordsAttritionThe InternetIntervention (counseling)Context (archaeology)PsychologyeHealthCompetence (human resources)MedicineDementiaHealth careNursingSocial psychologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Attrition, or nonuse of the intervention, is a significant problem in e-health. However, the reasons for this phenomenon are poorly understood. Building on Eysenbach's "Law of Attrition", this study aimed to explore the usage behavior of users of e-health services. We used two theoretical models, Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Service Utilization and Venkatesh's Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, to explore the factors associated with uptake and use of an internet-mediated intervention for caregivers taking care of a family member with dementia. METHODS: A multiphase, longitudinal design was used to follow a convenience sample of 46 family caregivers who received an e-health intervention. Applying the two theories, usage behavior was conceptualized to form four stages: consideration, initiation, utilization (attrition or continuation), and outcome. The variables and measurement scales were selected based on these theories to measure the sociodemographic context, technology aptitudes, and clinical needs of the caregivers. RESULTS: In the Consideration Stage, caregivers who felt that the information communication technology (ICT)-mediated service was easy to use were more likely to consider participating in the study (p = 0.04). In the Initiation Stage, caregivers who showed greater technology acceptance were more likely to initiate service earlier (p = 0.02). In the Utilization Stage, the frequent users were those who had a more positive attitude toward technology (p = 0.04) and a lower perceived caregiver competence (p = 0.04) compared with nonusers. In the Outcome Stage, frequent users experienced a decline in perceived burden compared with an escalation of perceived burden by nonusers (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: We illustrate a methodological framework describing how to develop and expand a theory on attrition. The proposed framework highlighted the importance of conceptualizing e-health "use" and "adoption" as dynamic, continuous, longitudinal processes occurring in different stages, influenced by different factors to predict advancement to the next stage. Although usage behavior was influenced mainly by technological factors in the initial stages, both clinical and technological factors were equally important in the later stages. Frequency of use was associated with positive clinical outcomes. A plausible explanation was that intervention benefits motivated the caregivers to continue the service and regular use led to more positive clinical outcome.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations158
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision MakingSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207