Self-Efficacy, Internet Self-Efficacy, and Proxy Efficacy as Predictors of the Use of Digital Social and Health Care Services Among Mental Health Service Users in Finland: A Cross-Sectional Study

References

• Helsper EJ. Digital inclusion: an analysis of social disadvantage and the information society; 2008. London, UK: Department for Communities and Local Government. Available from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/26938. Accessed June 15, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Heponiemi T, Jormanainen V, Leemann L, Manderbacka K, Aalto A, Hyppönen H. Digital divide in perceived benefits of online health care and social welfare services: national cross-sectional survey study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(7):e17616. doi:10.2196/17616
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry N, Lobban F, Bucci S. A qualitative exploration of service user views about using digital health interventions for self-management in severe mental health problems. BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19:35. doi:10.1186/s12888-018-1979-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberati E, Richards N, Parker J, et al. Remote care for mental health: qualitative study with service users, carers and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e049210. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson G, Cuijpers P, Carlbring P, Riper H, Hedman E. Guided internet-based vs face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Psychiatry. 2014;13(3):288–295. doi:10.1002/wps.20151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borghouts J, Eikey E, Mark G, et al. Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(3):e24387. doi:10.2196/24387
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greer B, Robotham D, Simblett S, Curtis H, Griffiths H, Wykes T. Digital exclusion among mental health service users: qualitative investigation. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(1):e11696. doi:10.2196/11696
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas J, Barraket J, Wilson CK, et al. Measuring Australia’s digital divide: The Australian digital inclusion index 2020. RMIT University. Centre for Social Impact. Telstra.2020. doi:10.25916/5f6eb9949c832
   Google Scholar
• Too L, Leach L, Butterworth P. Mental health problems and internet access: results from an Australian national household survey. JMIR Ment Health. 2020;7(5):e14825. doi:10.2196/14825
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaihlanen A, Virtanen L, Valkonen P, et al. Haavoittuvat ryhmät etäpalveluiden käyttäjinä [Vulnerable groups as remote service users]. Finnish institute for health and welfare. Tutkimuksesta tiiviisti 33/2021. Available from: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-343-687-9. Accessed July 19, 2021. Finnish.
   Google Scholar
• Stafford E, Brister T, Duckworth K, Rauseo-Ricupero N, Lagan S. Needs and experiences of users of digital navigation tools for mental health treatment and supportive services: survey study. JMIR Ment Health. 2021;8(6):e27022. doi:10.2196/27022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman; 1997. ISBN: 0-7167-2626-2.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:1–26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray SR, Brawley L, Millen J. Relationship of proxy efficacy and reliance to home-based physical activity after cardiac rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol. 2006;51:224–231. doi:10.1037/0090-5550.51.3.224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray SR, Saville P, Brawley L. Determinants of clients’ efficacy in their interventionists and effects on self-perceptions for exercise in cardiac rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol. 2013;58:185–195. doi:10.1037/a0032169
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakardjieva M. Internet Society: The Internet in Everyday Life. London: SAGE Publications; 2005. ISBN: 978076194338.
   Google Scholar
• Chuenphitthayavut K, Zihuang T, Zhu T. The prediction of behavioral intention to use online mental health interventions. Psych J. 2020;9:370–382. doi:10.1002/pchj.333
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastin MS, LaRose R. Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2000;6. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00110.x
   Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2006;1(2):164–180. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kulviwat S, Bruner GC, Neelankavil JP. Self-efficacy as an antecedent of cognition and affect in technology acceptance. J Consum Market. 2014;31:190–199. doi:10.1108/JCM-10-2013-0727
   Google Scholar
• Kim NE, Han SS, Yoo KH, Yun KE. The impact of user’s perceived ability on online health information acceptance. Telemed J E Health. 2012;18(9):703–708. doi:10.1089/tmj.2011.0277
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu MH, Chiu CM. Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance. Decis Support Syst. 2004;38:369–381. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2003.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compeau D, Higgins CA, Huff S. Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: a longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly. 1999;23:145–158. doi:10.2307/249749
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tao D, Shao F, Wang H, Yan M, Qu X. Integrating usability and social cognitive theories with the technology acceptance model to understand young users’ acceptance of a health information portal. Health Informatics J. 2020;26:1347–1362. doi:10.1177/1460458219879337
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marakas MG, Yi MY, Johnson RD. The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: toward clarification of the construct and an integrative framework for research. Inf Syst Res. 1998;9(2):126–163. doi:10.1287/isre.9.2.126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Sambamurthy V, Stair RM. Research report: the evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy - an empirical assessment. Inf Syst Res. 2000;11(4):418–430. doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.418.11876
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform. 2010;43:159–172. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J, Park H. Development of a health information technology acceptance model using consumers’ health behavior intention. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(5):e133. doi:10.2196/jmir.2143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray SR, Gyurcsik N, Culos-Reed S, Dawson K, Martin K. An exploratory investigation of the relationship between proxy efficacy, self-efficacy and exercise attendance. J Health Psychol. 2001;6:425–434. doi:10.1177/135910530100600405
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hänninen R, Taipale S, Luostari R. Exploring heterogeneous ICT use among older adults: the warm experts’ perspective. New Media Soc. 2021;23(6):1584–1601. doi:10.1177/1461444820917353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh JP, Arun RA, Keil M. Addressing digital inequality for the socioeconomically disadvantaged through government initiatives: forms of capital that affect ICT utilization. Inf Syst Res. 2011;22(2):233–253. doi:10.1287/isre.1090.0256
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Deursen A, van Dijk J. Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media Soc. 2011;13(6):893–911. doi:10.1177/1461444810386774
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunsaker A, Nguyen MH, Fuchs J, Djukaric T, Hugentobler L, Hargittai E. He explained it to me and I also did it myself”: how older adults get support with their technology uses. Socius. 2019;5:237802311988786. doi:10.1177/2378023119887866
   Google Scholar
• Chu RJC. How family support and internet self-efficacy influence the effects of e-learning among higher aged adults – analyses of gender and age differences. Comput Educ. 2010;55(1):255–264. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen AJ, Wiebe JS, Benotsch EG, Lawton WJ. Perceived health competence, health locus of control, and patient adherence in renal dialysis. Cognit Ther Res. 1996;20(4):411–421. doi:10.1007/BF02228042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birkhäuer J, Gaab J, Kossowsky J, et al. Trust in the health care professional and health outcome: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0170988. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170988
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray SR, Cowan H. Proxy efficacy: implications for self-efficacy and exercise intentions in cardiac rehabilitation. Rehab Psychol. 2004;49(1):71–75. doi:10.1037/0090-5550.49.1.71
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selwyn N. Digital division or digital decision? A study of non-users and low-users of computers. Poetics. 2006;34:273–292. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reisdorf BC, Groselj D. Internet (non-)use types and motivational access: implications for digital inequalities research. New Media Soc. 2017;19(8):1157–1176. doi:10.1177/1461444815621539
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courtois C, Verdegem P. With a little help from my friends: an analysis of the role of social support in digital inequalities. New Media Soc. 2016;18:508–1527. doi:10.1177/1461444814562162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobitt S, Percival R. Switched on or switched off? A survey of mobile, computer and Internet use in a community mental health rehabilitation sample. J Ment Health. 2019;28(1):4–10. doi:10.1080/09638237.2017.1340623
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao Y, Ni Q, Zhou R. What factors influence the mobile health service adoption? A meta-analysis and the moderating role of age. Int J Inf Manage. 2018;43:342–350. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.08.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio Causal and Control Beliefs. Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON; 1995:35–37. ISBN: 0708707335.
   Google Scholar
• Bray SR, Gyurcsik N, Ginis K, Culos-Reed S. The proxy efficacy exercise questionnaire: development of an instrument to assess female exercisers’ proxy efficacy beliefs in structured group exercise classes. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2004;26:442–456. doi:10.1123/jsep.26.3.442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Finance. Digitaitokartoitus – digitaalinen kysely [Survey of digital skills]; 2020. Available from: https://vm.fi/documents/10623/30029448/Digitaitokartoitus+%E2%80%93+Digitaalinen+kysely.pdf/52d627ca-89a0-605d-5003a0eff0248898/Digitaitokartoitus+%E2%80%93+Digitaalinen+kysely.pdf?t=1598850515996. Accessed July 5, 2021. Finnish.
   Google Scholar
• Laki digitaalisten palvelujen tarjoamisesta [act on the provision of digital services]; 2019. Available from: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2019/20190306. Accessed June 24, 2021. Finnish.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Finance. Digituen toimintamalliehdotus [Policy proposal for support in digital skills]. AUTA –hankkeen projektiryhmän loppuraportti; 2017. Available from: https://vm.fi/documents/10623/6581896/AUTA+raportti.pdf/74d0c25e-fa60-43c6-8856-c418faef9085. Accessed July 5, 2021. Finnish.
   Google Scholar
• Helsper EJ, van Deursen AJ. Do the rich get digitally richer? Quantity and quality of support for digital engagement. Inf Commun Soc. 2017;20:700–714. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2016.1203454
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• König R, Seifert A, Doh M. Internet use among older Europeans: an analysis based on SHARE data. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2018;17:621–633. doi:10.1007/s10209-018-0609-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robotham D, Satkunanathan S, Doughty L, Wykes T. Do we still have a digital divide in mental health? A five-year survey follow-up. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(11):e309. doi:10.2196/jmir.6511
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Granholm C. Blended lives: ICT talk among vulnerable young people in Finland. YOUNG. 2016;24(2):85–101. doi:10.1177/1103308815613188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen HT, Lundberg K, Syltevik LJ. Digitalization, street-level bureaucracy, and welfare users´ experiences. Soc Policy Adm. 2018;52(1):67–90. doi:10.1111/spol.12283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Järveläinen E, Rantanen T. Incarcerated people’s challenges for digital inclusion in Finnish prisons. Nord J Criminol. 2020. doi:10.1080/2578983X.2020.1819092
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rantanen T, Gluschkoff K, Silvennoinen P, Heponiemi T. The associations between mental health problems and attitudes toward web-based health and social care services: evidence from a Finnish population-based study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(9):e28066. doi:10.2196/28066
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolničar V, Grošelj D, Filipovič Hrast M, Vehovar V, Petrovčič A. The role of social support networks in proxy internet use from the intergenerational solidarity perspective. Telemat Inform. 2018;35(2):305–317. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar