Factors Affecting the Acceptability of Technology in Health Care Among Older Korean Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Cross-Sectional Study Adopting the Senior Technology Acceptance Model

Figures & data

Table 1 Correlations Between Participants’ Demographics and Technology Acceptance (n=226)

		Mean (SD)	N (%)	P value (r)	CM value (CMa)	KS value (KSa)
Age		79.44 (6.14)		0.000 (−0.241)***
Sex	Female		150 (66.37)	0.663 (−0.440)
	Male		76 (33.63)
Education	Primary school		69 (34.33)		0.005 (0.941)**
	Middle school		35 (17.41)
	High school		52 (25.87)
	College		39 (19.40)
	Graduate school		6 (2.99)
Economic status	Poor		38 (16.81)			0.083 (1.241)
	Fair		178 (78.76)
	Good		10 (4.42)
Marital status	Married		123 (54.42)			0.058 (0.872)
	Widowed		97 (42.92)
	Divorced		1 (0.44)
	Separated		5 (2.21)
Religion	Protestant		78 (34.51)			0.098 (1.467)
	Buddhist		71 (31.42)
	Catholic		29 (12.83)
	None		47 (20.80)
	Others		1 (0.44)
Residence	Alone		78 (34.51)			0.112 (1.682)
	With a spouse		93 (41.15)
	With unmarried children		20 (8.85)
	With married son		27 (11.95)
	With married daughter		6 (2.65)
	Others		2 (0.88)
Number of children		3.36 (1.14)		0.273 (−0.073)
Number of chronic disease		2.5 (0.79)		0.352 (0.062)

Notes: **p<0.01; ***p<.001.

Table 2 Independent Variables

Variables	Mean (SD)	Range	P value
Self-reported health condition	16.24 (3.83)	6–25	0.090 (0.113)
Cognitive ability	13.28 (2.90)	6–20	0.001 (0.225) ***
Social relationship	11.13 (2.41)	3–15	0.218 (0.082)
Attitude to aging and life satisfaction	6.47 (1.51)	2–10	0.194 (0.087)
Physical Function (IADL)	11.14 (2.29)	10–22	0.053 (−0.129)
Gerontechnology self-efficacy	6.23 (2.03)	2–10	<0.000 (0.323) ***
Gerontechnology anxiety	5.39 (2.10)	2–10	0.186 (−0.088)
Facilitating conditions	16.89 (4.19)	5–25	<0.000 (0.288) ***

Note: ***p<0.001.

Table 3 Acceptance of Technology

Construct	Items	N (%)					Mean Score (SD)
		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Not Sure	Agree	Strongly Agree
Attitude towards using	Using technology is a good idea	6 (2.7)	11 (4.9)	21 (9.3)	121 (53.5)	67 (29.7)	4 (0.9)
	You like the idea of using technology	5 (2.2)	14 (6.2)	21 (9.3)	116 (51.3)	70 (31.0)	4 (0.9)
Perceived usefulness	Using technology would enhance your effectiveness in life	3 (1.3)	17 (7.5)	40 (17.7)	101 (44.7)	65 (28.8)	3.9 (0.9)
	Using technology would make your life more convenient	3 (1.3)	16 (7.1)	29 (12.8)	105 (46.5)	73 (32.3)	4.0 (0.9)
	You would find technology useful in your life	6 (2.7)	13 (5.8)	27 (12.0)	109 (48.2)	71 (31.4)	4.0 (1.0)
Perceived ease of use	You would find technology easy to use	40 (17.7)	73 (32.3)	42 (18.6)	52 (23.0)	19 (8.4)	2.7 (1.2)
	You could be skillful at using technology	45 (19.9)	66 (29.2)	58 (25.7)	37 (16.4)	20 (8.9)	2.7 (1.2)
Total							25.36 (5.28)

Notes: Item score range 1 (Strongly Disagree) – 5 (Strongly Agree); Total score range 5–35.

Table 4 Stepwise Multiple Regression Model

	Technology Acceptance
	Unadjusted				Adjusted
Predictor variable	Beta	S.E.	t	Sig.	Beta	S.E.	t	Sig.
Age	−0.1836	0.0561	−3.27	0.001*	−0.1204	0.0544	−2.21	0.028*
Education	0.3003	0.0691	4.34	<0.000	0.1737	0.0717	2.42	0.016*
Gerontechnology self-efficacy	0.8533	0.1644	5.19	<0.000	0.3451	0.2313	1.49	0.137
Facilitating conditions	0.3870	0.0802	4.83	<0.000	0.1973	0.1074	1.84	0.067

Notes: All variables left in the model are significant at the 0.15 level; F(_4,221) = 11.02, p<0.001, adjusted R²=0.151; *p<0.05.