Advertisement

Willingness of MSM Living with HIV to Take Part in Video-Groups: Application of the Technology Readiness and Acceptance Model

  • DeAnne Turner
  • Elizabeth Lockhart
  • Stephanie L. MarhefkaEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Group-based programs are important for the psychosocial care of people living with HIV; however, programs are often limited by geography and availability. Video-groups, conducted via group-based video-conferencing on video-phones or computer, offer the benefits of group-based programs while overcoming barriers to attendance. This study sought to explore if, and how, the Technology Readiness and Acceptance Model (TRAM) could be used to explain the willingness of men to take part in video-groups. The TRAM was used as the guiding framework for thematic qualitative analysis. Among 106 participants, there was a general willingness to participate in video-groups. TRAM constructs were present in the data—with perceived usefulness (extent that participating in a technology-based program would facilitate group intervention behaviors) and insecurity (distrust/skepticism of technology) emerging as the most salient themes. The TRAM alone did not account for concerns related to group settings or the level of privacy needed when talking about HIV.

Keywords

HIV eHealth Video-conferencing Technology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Don Kurytka for his help with this research study.

References

  1. 1.
    Beyrer C, Baral SD, van Griensven F, et al. Global epidemiology of HIV infection in men who have sex with men. Lancet. 2012;380(9839):367–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beyrer C, Sullivan P, Sanchez J, et al. The increase in global HIV epidemics in MSM. AIDS. 2013;27(17):2665–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    CDC. Estimated HIV incidence among adults and adolescents in the United States, 2007–2010. HIV AIDS Surveill Rep. 2012;17:4.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    White House Office of National AIDS Policy. National HIV/AIDS strategy for the United States: updated to 2020. 2015. https://www.aids.gov/federal-resources/national-hiv-aids-strategy/nhas-update.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2015.
  5. 5.
    Christensen JL, Miller LC, Appleby PR, et al. Reducing shame in a game that predicts HIV risk reduction for young adult MSM: a randomized trial delivered nationally over the Web. J Int AIDS Soc. 2013;16(3 Suppl 2):18716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herbst JH, Beeker C, Mathew A, et al. The effectiveness of individual-, group-, and community-level HIV behavioral risk-reduction interventions for adult men who have sex with men: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(4):38–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lorimer K, Kidd L, Lawrence M, McPherson K, Cayless S, Cornish F. Systematic review of reviews of behavioural HIV prevention interventions among men who have sex with men. AIDS Care. 2013;25(2):133–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muessig KE, Nekkanti M, Bauermeister J, Bull S, Hightow-Weidman LB. A systematic review of recent smartphone, internet and web 2.0 interventions to address the HIV continuum of care. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2015;12(1):173–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marhefka SL, Turner D, Lockhart E, Rivara A, Wang W, Shuter J. Meeting our patients “Where They Are”: video-group smoking cessation for people living with HIV. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2018;29(2):338–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mustanski B, Garofalo R, Monahan C, Gratzer B, Andrews R. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of an online HIV prevention program for diverse young men who have sex with men: the keep it up! Interv AIDS Behav. 2013;17(9):2999–3012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pachankis JE, Lelutiu-Weinberger C, Golub SA, Parsons JT. Developing an online health intervention for young gay and bisexual men. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(9):2986–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klein C, Kuhn T, Huxley D, Kennel J, Withers E, Lomonaco CG. Preliminary findings of a technology-delivered sexual health promotion program for black men who have sex with men: quasi-experimental outcome study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2017;3(4):e78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Senn TE, Braksmajer A, Coury-Doniger P, Urban MA, Carey MP. Mobile technology use and desired technology-based intervention characteristics among HIV + Black men who have sex with men. AIDS Care. 2017;29(4):423–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalichman SC, Weinhardt L, Benotsch E, DiFonzo K, Luke W, Austin J. Internet access and internet use for health information among people living with HIV-AIDS. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;46(2):109–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klein CH, Lomonaco CG, Pavlescak R, Card JJ. WILLOW: reaching HIV-positive African-American women through a computer-delivered intervention. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(9):3013–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurth AE, Spielberg F, Cleland CM, et al. Computerized counseling reduces HIV-1 viral load and sexual transmission risk: findings from a randomized controlled trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;65(5):611–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lai T-Y, Larson EL, Rockoff ML, Bakken S. User Acceptance of HIV TIDES—tailored interventions for management of depressive symptoms in persons living with HIV/AIDS. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15(2):217–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Relf MV, Silva SG, Williams MS, et al. Feasibility of using an iPod touch device and acceptability of a stigma reduction intervention with HIV-infected women in the deep south. AIDS Behav. 2015;19:1896–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Claborn KR, Fernandez A, Wray T, Ramsey S. Computer-based HIV adherence promotion interventions: a systematic review. Transl Behav Med. 2015;5(3):294–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mabragana M, Carballo-Dieguez A, Giguere R. Young women’s experience with using videoconferencing for the assessment of sexual behavior and microbicide use. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19(11):866–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marhefka SL, Fuhrmann HJ, Gilliam P, Lopez B, Baldwin J. Interest in, concerns about, and preferences for potential video-group delivery of an effective behavioral intervention among women living with HIV. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(7):1961–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Green SM, Lockhart E, Marhefka SL. Advantages and disadvantages for receiving Internet-based HIV/AIDS interventions at home or at community-based organizations. AIDS Care. 2015;27(10):1304–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schnall R, Higgins T, Brown W, Carballo-Dieguez A, Bakken S. Trust, perceived risk, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness as factors related to mHealth technology use. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;216:467–71.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Holloway IW, Winder TJA, Lea Iii CH, Tan D, Boyd D, Novak D. Technology use and preferences for mobile phone-based HIV prevention and treatment among black young men who have sex with men: exploratory research. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(4):e46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goldenberg T, McDougal SJ, Sullivan PS, Stekler JD, Stephenson R. Building a mobile HIV prevention app for men who have sex with men: an iterative and community-driven process. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2015;1(2):e18.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marhefka SL, Turner D, Lockhart E. Understanding women’s willingness to use e-health for HIV-related services: a novel application of the Technology Readiness and Acceptance Model to a highly stigmatized medical condition. Telemed J E Health. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2018.0066.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marhefka SL, Buhi ER, Baldwin J, et al. Effectiveness of healthy relationships video-group—a videoconferencing group intervention for women living with HIV: preliminary findings from a randomized controlled trial. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(2):128–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Davis FD. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1985.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parasuraman A. Technology readiness index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. J Serv Res. 2000;2(4):307–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parasuraman A, Colby CL. An updated and streamlined technology readiness index: TRI 2.0. J Serv Res. 2015;18(1):59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lin CH, Shih HY, Sher PJ. Integrating technology readiness into technology acceptance: the TRAM model. Psychol Mark. 2007;24(7):641–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schnall R, Bakken S. Testing the Technology Acceptance Model: HIV case managers’ intention to use a continuity of care record with context-specific links. Inform Health Soc Care. 2011;36(3):161–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE. Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2011.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Campbell JI, Aturinda I, Mwesigwa E, et al. The Technology Acceptance Model for Resource-Limited Settings (TAM-RLS): a novel framework for mobile health interventions targeted to low-literacy end-users in resource-limited settings. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(11):3129–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smillie K, Van Borek N, van der Kop ML, et al. Mobile health for early retention in HIV care: a qualitative study in Kenya (WelTel Retain). Afr J AIDS Res. 2014;13(4):331–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 6th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hubach RD, Dodge B, Li MJ, et al. Loneliness, HIV-related stigma, and condom use among a predominantly rural sample of HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM). AIDS Educ Prev. 2015;27(1):72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cherenack EM, Wilson PA, Kreuzman AM, Price GN. The feasibility and acceptability of using technology-based daily diaries with HIV-infected young men who have sex with men: a comparison of internet and voice modalities. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(8):1744–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Holloway IW, Dunlap S, Del Pino HE, Hermanstyne K, Pulsipher C, Landovitz RJ. Online social networking, sexual risk and protective behaviors: considerations for clinicians and researchers. Curr Addict Rep. 2014;1(3):220–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Grosskopf NA, LeVasseur MT, Glaser DB. Use of the Internet and mobile-based “apps” for sex-seeking among men who have sex with men in New York City. Am J Mens Health. 2014;8(6):510–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hall JL, McGraw D. For telehealth to succeed, privacy and security risks must be identified and addressed. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(2):216–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Katusiime J, Pinkwart N. A review of privacy and usability issues in mobile health systems: role of external factors. Health Inform J. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458217733121.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Serafini JD, Damianakis T, Marziali E. Clinical practice standards and ethical issues applied to a virtual group intervention for spousal caregivers of people with Alzheimer’s. Soc Work Health Care. 2007;44(3):225–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gurung S, Kim Y. Healthcare privacy: how secure are the VOIP/video-conferencing tools for PHI data? Paper presented at: 2015 12th international conference on information technology-new generations; 2015.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Watzlaf VJ, Moeini S, Firouzan P. VoIP for telerehabilitation: a risk analysis for privacy, security, and HIPAA compliance. Int J Telerehabil. 2010;2(2):3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kiah MM, Al-Bakri S, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Hussain M. Design and develop a video conferencing framework for real-time telemedicine applications using secure group-based communication architecture. J Med Syst. 2014;38(10):133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Watzlaf VJ, Zhou L, DeAlmeida DR, Hartman LM. A systematic review of research studies examining telehealth privacy and security practices used by healthcare providers. Int J Telerehabil. 2017;9(2):39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shore JH, Yellowlees P, Caudill R, et al. Best practices in videoconferencing-based telemental health April 2018. Telemed J E Health. 2018;24(11):827–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Community and Family Health, College of Public HealthUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations