Canadian Older Adults’ Intention to Use an Electronic Decision Aid for Housing Decisions: Cross-sectional Web-Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults with disabilities such as loss of autonomy face the decision of whether to stay at home or move to a health care facility such as a nursing home. Therefore, they may need support for this difficult decision. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the intention of Canadian older adults to use an electronic decision aid (eDA) to make housing decisions and identified the factors that influenced their intention. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a web-based survey targeting older adults across 10 Canadian provinces and 3 territories. We included respondents from a web-based panel who were aged ≥65 years, understood English or French, had access to an electronic device with an internet connection, and had made a housing decision over the past few months or were planning to make a decision in the coming year. We based the web-based survey on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). We adapted 17 UTAUT items to measure respondents' intention to use the eDA for housing decisions, as well as items measuring 4 intention constructs (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions). We also assessed eHealth literacy using both subjective and objective scales. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression analyses to identify the factors influencing the intention to use the eDA. RESULTS: Of the 11,972 invited panelists, 1176 (9.82%) met the eligibility criteria, and 1000 (85.03%) respondents completed the survey. The mean age was 72.5 (SD 5.59) years. Most respondents were male (548/1000, 54.8%), White (906/1000, 90.6%), English speakers (629/1000, 62.9%), and lived in Ontario or Quebec (628/1000, 62.8%) and in urban areas (850/1000, 85%). The mean scores were 27.8 (SD 5.88) out of 40 for subjective eHealth literacy and 3.00 (SD 0.97) out of 5 for objective eHealth literacy. In our sample, the intention score was 4.74 (SD 1.7) out of 7. The mean scores of intention constructs out of 7 were 5.63 (SD 1.28) for facilitating conditions, 4.94 (SD 1.48) for performance expectancy, 5.61 (SD 1.35) for effort expectancy, and 4.76 (SD 1.59) for social influence. In the final model, the factors associated with intention included mother tongue (β=.30; P<.001), objective eHealth literacy (β=-.06; P=.03), performance expectancy (β=.55; P<.001), social influence (β=.37; P<.001), and facilitating conditions (β=.15; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this pan-Canadian web-based survey on Canadian older adults suggest that their intention to use the eDA to make housing decisions is similar to the findings in other studies using UTAUT. The factors identified as influencing intention were mother tongue, objective eHealth literacy, performance expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. These will guide future strategies for the implementation of the eDA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".