Advertisement

A Small but Significant Difference – The Role of Gender on Acceptance of Medical Assistive Technologies

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6389)

Abstract

The current research aimed to study user diversity with a focus on gender differences in adoption of medical assistive technologies in general, and in particular. In order to understand the gender impact, we conducted two consecutive studies and considered gender as a key moderator of acceptance aspects in the medical context. The first study focused on general aspects of medical technology acceptability: users’ willingness to use it, the importance of privacy and trust as well as the general attitude across gender and specified age groups. For a deeper insight into this topic the second study was conducted in order to analyze gendered acceptance on specific health-related device. As results showed people’s general attitude towards medical technology and their willingness to use such medical assisting devices is throughout positive. However, gender differences emerge at the time when it comes to an assessment of a concrete medical tool (here smart textiles).

Keywords

Gender smart home technology privacy trust control perceived usefulness TAM medical technology smart textiles 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wittenberg, R., Comas-Herrera, A., Pickard, L., Hancock, R.: Future Demand for Long-Term Care in England. PSSRU Research Summary (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leonhardt, S.: Personal Healthcare Devices. In: Mukherjee, S., et al. (eds.) Malware: Hardware Technology Drivers of Ambient Intelligence, pp. 349–370. Springer, Dordrecht (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gaul, S., Ziefle, M., Arning, K., Wilkowska, W., Kasugai, K., Röcker, C., Jakobs, E.-M.: Technology Acceptance as an Integrative Component of Product Developments in the Medical Technology Sector. In: Proceedings of the Third Ambient Assisted Living Conference (AAL 2010), January 26 - 27. VDE Verlag, Berlin (2010), CD-ROM Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gaul, S., Ziefle, M.: Smart Home Technologies: Insights into Generation-Specific Acceptance Motives. In: Holzinger, A., Miesenberger, K. (eds.) USAB 2009. LNCS, vol. 5889, pp. 312–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Röcker, C.: Living and Working in Automated Environments - Evaluating the Concerns of End-Users in Technology-Enhanced Spaces. In: Mahadevan, V., Jianhong, Z. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International IEEE Conference on Computer and Automation Engineering, Singapore, February 26 - 28, pp. 513–517 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jähn, K., Nagel, E.: E-Health. Springer, Berlin (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 319–337 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science 46, 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27, 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Different Perspectives on Technology Acceptance: The Role of Technology Type and Age. In: Holzinger, A., Miesenberger, K. (eds.) USAB 2009. LNCS, vol. 5889, pp. 20–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ziefle, M.: Age perspectives on the usefulness on e-health applications. International Conference on Health Care Systems, Ergonomics, and Patient Safety (HEPS), Straßbourg, France (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer, S., Mollenkopf, H.: Home technology, smart homes, and the aging user. In: Schaie, K.W., Wahl, H.-W., Mollenkopf, H., Oswald, F. (eds.) Aging Independently: Living Arrangements and Mobility, pp. 148–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demiris, G., Hensel, B.K., Skubic, M., Rantz, M.: Senior residents’ perceived need of and preferences for “smart home” sensor technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 24(1), 120–124 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stronge, A.J., Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D.J.: Human factors considerations in implementing telemedicine systems to accommodate older adults. Telemed Telecare 13, 1–3 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalloniatis, C., Kavakli, E., Gritzalis, S.: Using Privacy Process Patterns for Incorporating Privacy Requirements into the System Design Process. In: 2nd International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, pp. 1009–1017. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sheridan, T.B.: Humans and Automation, vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons, Santa Monica (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Montague, E., Kleiner, B.M., Winchester, W.W.: Empirically Understanding Trust in Medical Technology. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 39(4), 628–634 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carmel, S.: The will to live: Gender differences among elderly patients. Social Sciences and Medicine 49, 1401–1408 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ditto, P.H., Smucker, W.D., Danks, J.H., Jacobson, J.A., Houts, R.M., Fagerlin, A., Coppola, K.M., Gready, R.M.: Stability of older adults’ preferences for life-sustaining medical treatment. Health Psychology 22, 606–615 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arber, S., Vandrevala, T., Daly, T., Hampson, S.: Understanding gender differences in older people’s attitudes towards life-prolonging medical technologies. Journal of Aging Studies 22, 366–375 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peplau, L.A., Bikson, T.K., Rook, K.S., Goodchilds, J.D.: Being old and living alone. In: Peplau, L.A., Perlman, D. (eds.) Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, pp. 327–347. Wiley, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lehr, U.: Psychologie des Alterns, 9th edn. Quelle & Meyer, Wiebelsheim (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schumacher, P., Morahan-Martin, J.: Gender, internet and computer attitudes and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior 17, 95–110 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meelissen, M.R.M., Drent, M.: Gender differences in computer attitudes: Does the school matter? Computers in Human Behavior 24(3), 969–985 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Ackerman, P.L.: A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Differences in Individual Technology Adoption Decision Making Processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 83(1), 33–60 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morris, M.G., Venkatesh, V., Ackerman, P.L.: Gender and age differences in employee decisions about new technology: an extension to the theory of planned behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 52(1), 69–84 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beckmann, L., Kim, S., Jungbecker, N., Ingerl, G., Leonhardt, S.: Entwicklung intelligenter Textilien für die Überwachung des Ernährungs- und Wasserhaushalts. In: Deutscher AAL Kongress 2009, Berlin, vol. 2 (January 27-28, 2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: User diversity as a challenge for the integration of medical technology into future home environments. In: Ziefle, M., Röcker, C. (eds.) Human-Centred Design of eHealth Technologies. Concepts, Methods and Applications. Hershey, P.A. IGI Global (in press) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ziefle, M., Wilkowska, W.: Technology acceptability for medical assistance. In: 4th Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare 2010, ICST 2010, Munic, Germany (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ziefle, M., Röcker, C.: Acceptance of Pervasive Healthcare Systems: A comparison of different implementation concepts. In: 4th ICST Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare 2010, User-Centred-Design of Pervasive Health Applications (UCD-PH 2010) (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gaul, S., Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: Accounting for user diversity in the acceptance of medical assistive technologies. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International ICST Conference on Electronic Healthcare for the 21st Century, eHealth 2010 (2010, in press)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ziefle, M., Schaar, A.K.: Gender differences in attitudes towards invasive medical technology. Electronic Journal of Health Informatics (2010, in press)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ziefle, M., Schaar, A.K.: Technical Expertise and its Influence on the Acceptance of Future Medical Technologies. What is influencing what to which extent? In: Leitner, G., Hitz, M., Holzinger, A. (eds.) HCI in Work & Learning, Life & Leisure, 6th Symposium of the WG HCI&UE of the Austrian Computer Society, USAB 2010, pp. 138–155 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Baltes, M.M., Freund, A.M., Horgas, A.L.: Men and women in the Berlin aging study. In: Baltes, P.B., Mayer, K.U. (eds.) The Berlin Aging Study. Aging from 70 to 100, pp. 259–281. Academic Press, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Busch, T.: Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research 12, 147–158 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brosnan, M.J.: The impact of computer anxiety and self-efficacy upon performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 14, 223–234 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Communication Science, Human Technology Centre (HumTec)RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations