Public Attitudes Towards the Use of Novel Technologies in Their Future Healthcare: A UK Survey

Background Innovation in healthcare technologies can result in more convenient and effective treatment that is less costly, but a persistent challenge to widespread adoption in health and social care is end user acceptability. The purpose of this study was to capture UK public opinions and attitudes to novel healthcare technologies (NHTs), and to better understand the factors that contribute to acceptance and future use. Methods An online survey was distributed to the UK public between April and May 2020. Respondents received brief information about four novel healthcare technologies (NHTs) in development: a laser-based tool for early diagnosis of osteoarthritis, a virtual reality tool to support diabetes self-management, a non-invasive continuous glucose monitor using microwave signals, a mobile app for patient reported monitoring of rheumatoid arthritis. They were queried on their general familiarity and attitudes to technology, and their willingness to accept each NHT in their future care. Responses were analysed using summary statistics and content analysis. Results Knowledge about NHTs was diverse, with respondents being more aware about the health applications of mobile apps (66%), followed by laser-based technology (63.8%), microwave signalling (28%), and virtual reality (18.3%). Increasing age and the presence of a self-reported medical condition favoured acceptability for some NHTs, whereas self-reported understanding of how the NHT works resulted in elevated acceptance scores across all NHTs presented. Common contributors to hesitancy were safety and risks from use. Respondents wanted more information and evidence to help inform their decisions, ideally provided verbally by a general practitioner or health professional. Other concerns, such as privacy, were NHT-specific but equally important in decision-making. Conclusions Early insight into the knowledge and preconceptions of the public about NHTs in development can assist their design and prospectively mitigate obstacles to acceptance and adoption.

Public attitudes towards the use of novel technologies in their future healthcare: A UK survey

BackgroundInnovation in healthcare technologies can result in more convenient and effective treatment that is less costly, but a persistent challenge to widespread adoption in health and social care is end user acceptability. The purpose of this study was to capture UK public opinions and attitudes to novel healthcare technologies (NHTs), and to better understand the factors that contribute to acceptance and future use.MethodsAn online survey was distributed to the UK public between April and May 2020. Respondents received brief information about four novel healthcare technologies (NHTs) in development: a laser-based tool for early diagnosis of osteoarthritis, a virtual reality tool to support diabetes self-management, a non-invasive continuous glucose monitor using microwave signals, a mobile app for patient reported monitoring of rheumatoid arthritis. They were queried on their general familiarity and attitudes to technology, and their willingness to accept each NHT in their future care. Responses were analysed using summary statistics and content analysis.ResultsKnowledge about NHTs was diverse, with respondents being more aware about the health applications of mobile apps (66%), followed by laser-based technology (63.8%), microwave signalling (28%), and virtual reality (18.3%). Increasing age and the presence of a self-reported medical condition favoured acceptability for some NHTs, whereas self-reported understanding of how the NHT works resulted in elevated acceptance scores across all NHTs presented. Common contributors to hesitancy were safety and risks from use. Respondents wanted more information and evidence to help inform their decisions, ideally provided verbally by a general practitioner or health professional. Other concerns, such as privacy, were NHT-specific but equally important in decision-making.ConclusionsEarly insight into the knowledge and preconceptions of the public about NHTs in development can assist their design and prospectively mitigate obstacles to acceptance and adoption.

Technology Acceptance in Healthcare: A Systematic Review

Understanding the factors affecting the use of healthcare technologies is a crucial topic that has been extensively studied, specifically during the last decade. These factors were studied using different technology acceptance models and theories. However, a systematic review that offers extensive understanding into what affects healthcare technologies and services and covers distinctive trends in large-scale research remains lacking. Therefore, this review aims to systematically review the articles published on technology acceptance in healthcare. From a yield of 1768 studies collected, 142 empirical studies have met the eligibility criteria and were extensively analyzed. The key findings confirmed that TAM and UTAUT are the most prevailing models in explaining what affects the acceptance of various healthcare technologies through different user groups, settings, and countries. Apart from the core constructs of TAM and UTAUT, the results showed that anxiety, computer self-efficacy, innovativeness, and trust are the most influential factors affecting various healthcare technologies. The results also revealed that Taiwan and the USA are leading the research of technology acceptance in healthcare, with a remarkable increase in studies focusing on telemedicine and electronic medical records solutions. This review is believed to enhance our understanding through a number of theoretical contributions and practical implications by unveiling the full potential of technology acceptance in healthcare and opening the door for further research opportunities.

Ethics as Discursive Work: The Role of Ethical Framing in the Promissory Future of Data-driven Healthcare Technologies

The allure of a “data-driven” future healthcare system continues to seduce many. Increasingly, work in Science & Technology Studies and related fields started to interrogate the saliency of this promissory rhetoric by raising ethical questions concerning epistemology, bias, surveillance, security, and opacity. Less visible is how ethical arguments are used as part of discursive work by various practitioners engaged in data-driven initiatives in healthcare. This article argues for more explicit attention to such discursive work in shaping the promissory future of data-driven healthcare technologies. Bringing together the hitherto separated themes of promissory futures and an emic approach to ethics as discursive work, we study how actors engaged various data-driven healthcare initiatives discursively conduct such ethics work, implicitly or explicitly assigning tasks and roles for stakeholders. We conceptualize this with the notion of “ethical framing” and identify three widely recurring types: ethics as “balancing act,” the technical “fix,” and ethics as “collective thought process.” We outline the characteristics of these acts of framing and discuss their implications for the envisaged roles and responsibilities of various actors. In the Discussion section, we outline the added value of bringing the distinct bodies of literature on promissory futures and ethical framing together and outline themes for new research.

Big Data and the Threat to Moral Responsibility in Healthcare

Technological innovations in healthcare, perhaps now more than ever, are posing decisive opportunities for improvements in diagnostics, treatment, and overall quality of life. The use of artificial intelligence and big data processing, in particular, stands to revolutionize healthcare systems as we once knew them. But what effect do these technologies have on human agency and moral responsibility in healthcare? How can patients, practitioners, and the general public best respond to potential obscurities in responsibility? In this paper, I investigate the social and ethical challenges arising with newfound medical technologies, specifically the ways in which artificially intelligent systems may be threatening moral responsibility in the delivery of healthcare. I argue that if our ability to locate responsibility becomes threatened, we are left with a difficult choice of trade-offs. In short, it might seem that we should exercise extreme caution or even restraint in our use of state-of-the-art systems, but thereby lose out on such benefits as improved quality of care. Alternatively, we could embrace novel healthcare technologies but in doing so we might need to loosen our commitment to locating moral responsibility when patients come to harm; for even if harms are fewer – say, as a result of data-driven diagnostics – it may be unclear who or what is responsible when things go wrong. What is clear, at least, is that the shift toward artificial intelligence and big data calls for significant revisions in expectations on how, if at all, we might locate notions of responsibility in emerging models of healthcare.