Evidence mapPaperPMID 40334265Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Improving Acceptability of mHealth Apps-The Use of the Technology Acceptance Model to Assess the Acceptability of mHealth Apps: Systematic Review.

Ahmer Adnan, Rebecca Eilish Irvine, Allison Williams, Matthew Harris, Grazia Antonacci

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ahmer AdnanFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7921-675X
Rebecca Eilish IrvineFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9389-9408
Allison WilliamsNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) Northwest London, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2287-0608
Matthew HarrisNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) Northwest London, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0005-9710
Grazia AntonacciNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) Northwest London, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7742-8003

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health apps (MHAs) are increasingly used in modern health care provision. The technology acceptance model (TAM) is the most widely used framework for predicting health care technology acceptance. Since the advent of this model in 1989, technology has made generational advancements, and extensions of this model have been implemented.

objectiveThis systematic review aimed to re-examine TAM models to establish their validity for predicting the acceptance of modern MHAs, reviewing relevant core and extended constructs, and the relationships between them.

methodsIn this systematic review, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were searched on March 8, 2024, with no time constraints, for studies assessing the use of TAM-based frameworks for MHA acceptance. Studies eligible for data extraction were required to be peer-reviewed, English-language, primary research articles evaluating MHAs with health-related utility, using TAM as the primary technology acceptance evaluation framework, and reporting app use data. Data were extracted and grouped into 5 extended TAM construct themes. Quality assessment was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools. For cross-sectional methodologies (9/14, 64%), the JBI checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies was used. For non-cross-sectional studies (5/14, 36%), the JBI checklist most relevant to the specific study design was used. For mixed methods studies (1/14, 7%), the JBI checklist for qualitative studies was applied, in addition to the JBI checklist most suited to the quantitative design. A subsequent narrative synthesis was conducted in line with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology.

resultsA total of 2790 records were identified, and 14 were included. Furthermore, 10 studies validated the efficacy of TAM and its extensions for the assessment of MHAs. Relationships between core TAM constructs (perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and behavioral intention) were validated. Extended TAM constructs were grouped into 5 themes: health risk, application factors, social factors, digital literacy, and trust. Digital literacy, trust, and application factor extended construct themes had significant predictive capacity. Application factors had the strongest MHA acceptance predictive capabilities. Perceived usefulness and extended constructs related to social factors, design aesthetics, and personalization were more influential for those from deprived socioeconomic backgrounds.

conclusionsTAM is an effective framework for evaluating MHA acceptance. While original TAM constructs wield significant predictive capacity, the incorporation of social and clinical context-specific extended TAM constructs can enhance the model's predictive capabilities. This review's findings can be applied to optimize MHAs' user engagement and minimize health care inequalities. Our findings also underscore the necessity of adapting TAM and other acceptability frameworks as the technological and social landscape evolves.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42024532974; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024532974.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsPatient Acceptance of Health CareTelemedicineHumanshealth information technology acceptance modelmHealthmobile health appstechnology acceptance model

Identifiers

PMID40334265
PMCPMC12096023

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.