Study of the Innovative Characteristics of a New Technology for Bladder and Intestinal Elimination: An Empirical Study for the Evaluation of Ease of Use and Perceived Utility

  • Joana Parreira
  • Daniela Fernandes
  • Lisete Mónico
  • Anabela Salgueiro-Oliveira
  • Liliana Sousa
  • Paulo Santos Costa
  • Inês Marques
  • Daniel Ventura
  • Mónica Silva
  • Arménio Cruz
  • César Fonseca
  • Rafael Bernardes
  • Carla Carvalho
  • Luciene Braga
  • Pedro ParreiraEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1016)


Background: Bedpans are medical devices usually used in the healthcare delivery to bedridden patients which health condition implies that bladder and/or intestinal elimination is done in bed. Physical and psychological discomfort experienced by patients in these situations it’s a challenge to professionals to look for innovative proposals, looking for the reduction of negative impacts in many levels.

Objective: To evaluate the acceptance, by general population of (i) classical bedpans currently in the market and (ii) an inflatable proposal based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Method: The sample included 108 participants, aged between 19 and 81 years, caretakers/users of bedpans. The Technology Acceptance Model was used to evaluate the perception of utility and ease of use. All participants completed an online self-response questionnaire, later submitted to Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory and reliability study. Results: The results allow indicating a high degree of acceptance for the value proposition of the innovative bedpan, compared to the classic model. Conclusion: This study constitutes an important contribution to the human sciences, since it allows evaluating the ease of use and utility by users of bedpans, evidencing the importance of the innovative characteristics proposed to the new inflated bedpan.


Classic bedpan Insufflate bedpan Technology Acceptance Model Healthcare technology Medical device 


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. A discussion document on the concept and principles of health promotion, Copenhagen, 9–13 July 1984.
  2. 2.
    Buss, P.: Uma introdução ao conceito de promoção da saúde. In: Czeresnia, D., Freitas, C.M. (orgs.) Promoção da Saúde: Conceitos, Reflexões, Tendências, pp. 15–38. Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    PORDATA (a) - Base de dados Portugal Contemporâneo: Camas nos estabelecimentos de saúde por 100 mil habitantes - Continente Portugal (2017).
  4. 4.
    Gibson, G.L.: Bacteriological hazards of disposable bedpan systems. J. Clin. Pathol. 26(2), 146–153 (1973). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Young, J.: Inflatable, disposable bedpan apparatus and method. United States Pattern (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mag, H., Werner, B., Saxer, S.: Patient experience with bedpans in acute care: a cross-sectional study. J. Clin. Nurs. 22(15–16), 2216–2224 (2013). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith, R.E., Wash, R., Imel, M.: Inflatable body support for use with bedpan. United States Patent [US4207633(A)] (1980)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Royal, G.S.: Disposable inflatable bedpan. United States Patent [US5224223 (A)] (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoque, M.R.: An empirical study of mHealth adoption in a developing country: the moderating effect of gender concern. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 16, 51 (2016). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Venkatesh, V.: Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11(4), 342–365 (2000). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, S., Lee, K., Hwang, H., Yoo, S.: Analysis of the factors influencing healthcare professionals’ adoption of mobile electronic medical record (EMR) using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in a tertiary hospital. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 16(12) (2016).
  14. 14.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E., Thorbjørnsen, H.: Intentions to use mobile services: antecedents and cross-service comparisons. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 33(3), 330–346 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bao, Y., Xiong, T., Hu, Z., Kibelloh, M.: Exploring gender differences on general and specific computer self-efficacy in mobile learning adoption. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 49(1), 111–132 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chang, C.: The technology acceptance model and its application in a telehealth program for the elderly with chronic illnesses. Hu Li Za Zhi J. Nurs. 62(3), 11–16 (2015). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alferes, V.R.: Methods of Randomization in Experimental Design. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tabachnick, B., Fidell, L.: Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bryman, A., Cramer, D.: Análise de Dados em Ciências Sociais: Introdução às Técnicas Utilizando o SPSS, 2nd edn. Celta, Oeiras (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gorsuch, R.: Factor Analysis, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1983)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arbuckle, J.L.: Amos 22 User’s Guide. SPSS, Chicago (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fornell, C., Larcker, D.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18(1), 39–50 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schumacker, R.E., Lomax, R.G.: A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Routledge Academic, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brown, T.: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. The Gilford Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bentler, P.: Quantitative methods in psychology: comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107, 238–246 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kline, R.B.: Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd edn. The Guilford Press, New York (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marôco, J.: Análise Estatística com o SPSS Statistics, 5th edn. ReportNumber, Lisboa (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bollen, K.: Sample size and Bentler and Bonett’s nonnormed fit index. Psychometrika 51, 375–377 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nunnally, J.: Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. McGraw- Hill, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., Black, W.: Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th edn. Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hill, M., Hill, A.: Investigação por Questionário. Edições Sílabo, Lisboa (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y.: On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16, 74–94 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Polytechnic School of LeiriaLeiriaPortugal
  2. 2.Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences of Coimbra UniversityCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.Nursing School of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  4. 4.The Health Sciences Research Unit: NursingCoimbraPortugal
  5. 5.Nursing School of ÉvoraÉvoraPortugal
  6. 6.Medicine and Nursing Department of Federal University of ViçosaViçosaBrazil

Personalised recommendations