Developing a Technology Acceptability and Usage Survey (TAUS) for mHealth Intervention Planning and Evaluation in Nigeria: Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technology acceptability and usage surveys (TAUS) are brief questionnaires that measure technology comfort, typical daily use, and access in a population. However, current measures are not adapted to low- and middle-income country (LMIC) contexts. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this pilot study was to develop a TAUS that could be used to inform the implementation of a mobile health (mHealth) intervention in Nigeria. METHODS: A literature review of validated technology comfort and usage scales was conducted to identify candidate items. The draft measure was reviewed for face validity by an expert panel comprised of clinicians and researchers with cultural, methodological, and clinical expertise. The measure was piloted by radiologists at an oncology symposium in Nigeria. RESULTS: After expert review, the final measure included 18 items organized into 3 domains: (1) comfort with using mobile applications, (2) reliability of internet or electricity, and (3) attitudes toward using computers or mobile applications in clinical practice. The pilot sample (n=16) reported high levels of comfort and acceptability toward using mHealth applications in the clinical setting but faced numerous infrastructure challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot results indicate that the TAUS may be a feasible and appropriate measure for assessing technology usage and acceptability in LMIC clinical contexts. Dedicating a domain to technology infrastructure and access yielded valuable insights for program implementation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".