Determining the Influencing Factors on Acceptance of eHealth Pain Management Interventions Among Patients With Chronic Pain Using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chronic pain is a complex disease with high prevalence rates, and many individuals who are affected do not receive adequate treatment. As a complement to conventional therapies, eHealth interventions could provide many benefits to a multimodal treatment approach for patients with chronic pain, whereby future use is associated with the acceptance of these interventions. Objective This study aims to assess the acceptance of eHealth pain management interventions among patients with chronic pain and identify the influencing factors on acceptance. A further objective of the study is to evaluate the viability of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model and compare it with its extended version in terms of explained variance of acceptance. Methods We performed a cross-sectional web-based study. In total, 307 participants with chronic pain, as defined according to the International Association for the Study of Pain criteria, were recruited through flyers, posters, and web-based inquiries between December 2020 and July 2021. In addition to sociodemographic and medical data, the assessment included validated psychometric instruments and an extended version of the well-established UTAUT model. For statistical analyses, group comparisons and multiple hierarchical regression analyses were performed. Results The acceptance of eHealth pain management interventions among patients with chronic pain was overall moderate to high (mean 3.67, SD 0.89). There was significant difference in acceptance among age groups (W=9674.0; r=0.156; P=.04). Effort expectancy (β=.37; P<.001), performance expectancy (β=.33; P<.001), and social influence (β=.34; P<.001) proved to be the most important predictors of acceptance. The extended UTAUT (including the original UTAUT factors as well as sociodemographic, medical, and eHealth-related factors) model explained 66.4% of the variance in acceptance, thus supporting the viability of the model. Compared with the original UTAUT model (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence), the extended model explained significantly more variance (F25,278=1.74; P=.02). Conclusions Given the association between acceptance and future use, the knowledge of the influencing factors on acceptance should be used in the development and promotion of eHealth pain management interventions. Overall, the acceptance of eHealth pain management interventions was moderate to high. In total, 8 predictors proved to be significant predictors of acceptance. The UTAUT model is a valuable instrument for determining acceptance as well as the factors that influence acceptance of eHealth pain management interventions among patients with chronic pain. The extended UTAUT model provided the greatest predictive value for acceptance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".