AUTHOR=Rottstädt Fabian , Becker Eduard , Wilz Gabriele , Croy Ilona , Baumeister Harald , Terhorst Yannik 

TITLE=Enhancing the acceptance of smart sensing in psychotherapy patients: findings from a randomized controlled trial

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Digital Health

VOLUME=6

YEAR=2024

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/digital-health/articles/10.3389/fdgth.2024.1335776

DOI=10.3389/fdgth.2024.1335776

ISSN=2673-253X

ABSTRACT=<sec><title>Objective</title><p>Smart sensing has the potential to make psychotherapeutic treatments more effective. It involves the passive analysis and collection of data generated by digital devices. However, acceptance of smart sensing among psychotherapy patients remains unclear. Based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), this study investigated (1) the acceptance toward smart sensing in a sample of psychotherapy patients (2) the effectiveness of an acceptance facilitating intervention (AFI) and (3) the determinants of acceptance.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>Patients (<italic>N</italic> = 116) were randomly assigned to a control group (CG) or intervention group (IG). The IG received a video AFI on smart sensing, and the CG a control video. An online questionnaire was used to assess acceptance of smart sensing, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions and social influence. The intervention effects of the AFI on acceptance were investigated. The determinants of acceptance were analyzed with structural equation modeling (SEM).</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>The IG showed a moderate level of acceptance (<italic>M</italic> = 3.16, SD = 0.97), while the CG showed a low level (<italic>M</italic> = 2.76, SD = 1.0). The increase in acceptance showed a moderate effect in the intervention group (<italic>p</italic> &lt; .05, <italic>d</italic> = 0.4). For the IG, performance expectancy (<italic>M</italic> = 3.92, SD = 0.7), effort expectancy (<italic>M</italic> = 3.90, SD = 0.98) as well as facilitating conditions (<italic>M</italic> = 3.91, SD = 0.93) achieved high levels. Performance expectancy (<italic>γ</italic> = 0.63, <italic>p</italic> &lt; .001) and effort expectancy (<italic>γ</italic> = 0.36, <italic>p</italic> &lt; .001) were identified as the core determinants of acceptance explaining 71.1% of its variance. The fit indices supported the model's validity (CFI = .95, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .08).</p></sec><sec><title>Discussion</title><p>The low acceptance in the CG suggests that enhancing the acceptance should be considered, potentially increasing the use and adherence to the technology. The current AFI was effective in doing so and is thus a promising approach. The IG also showed significantly higher performance expectancy and social influence and, in general, a strong expression of the UTAUT factors. The results support the applicability of the UTAUT in the context of smart sensing in a clinical sample, as the included predictors were able to explain a great amount of the variance of acceptance.</p></sec>