JAMIA open · 2026
Predictors of lung cancer patients' behavioral intention to use virtual reality for treatment preparedness and shared decision-making: a Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology-based perception study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Elkefi Safa, Feiner Steven K, Matthews Alicia K, Rocha Luis M, Gershenson-Garcia Carlos, Scheinmann Roberta
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We examined the intention of lung cancer patients to use virtual reality (VR) to support shared decision-making and treatment preparedness and identified predictors of this intention using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT).
METHODS: Two hundred cancer patients completed a survey. Logistic regression was used to identify the predictors of VR use for decision-making.
RESULTS: 89.5% were willing to use VR; willing participants were younger than those who were not willing (60.8 ± 15.3 years; P < .001). Digital literacy was high in 89%, whereas health literacy was marginal/limited in 85%. Willingness was associated with greater technology use (P = .009). Performance expectancy strongly predicted intention: motivation to engage (Yes OR = 6.93; 95% CI, [4.06, 11.84]) and gaining knowledge (Yes OR = 15.20; 95% CI, [4.39, 52.56]); all P < .001. Effort expectancy (ease of navigation) was significant (Easy OR = 7.16; 95% CI, [2.50, 20.49]; P < .001), while mental/physical workload were not (P = .312/.732). Social influence from family/friends (OR = 3.38; 95% CI, [1.29, 8.84]; P = .016) and valuing family involvement (OR = 3.30; 95% CI, [1.32, 8.22]; P = .015) predicted intention; clinician encouragement did not (P = .283). Facilitating conditions were robust: peers also using VR (OR = 4.23; 95% CI, [1.46, 12.26]; P = .010), having assistance (OR = 7.05; 95% CI, [2.54, 19.61]; P = .0002), and clear instructions (OR = 20.60; 95% CI, [6.87, 61.75]; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate high receptivity to VR and highlight actionable levers, including usability, family engagement, assistance, and instructional supports, for implementation in oncology care.
METHODS: Two hundred cancer patients completed a survey. Logistic regression was used to identify the predictors of VR use for decision-making.
RESULTS: 89.5% were willing to use VR; willing participants were younger than those who were not willing (60.8 ± 15.3 years; P < .001). Digital literacy was high in 89%, whereas health literacy was marginal/limited in 85%. Willingness was associated with greater technology use (P = .009). Performance expectancy strongly predicted intention: motivation to engage (Yes OR = 6.93; 95% CI, [4.06, 11.84]) and gaining knowledge (Yes OR = 15.20; 95% CI, [4.39, 52.56]); all P < .001. Effort expectancy (ease of navigation) was significant (Easy OR = 7.16; 95% CI, [2.50, 20.49]; P < .001), while mental/physical workload were not (P = .312/.732). Social influence from family/friends (OR = 3.38; 95% CI, [1.29, 8.84]; P = .016) and valuing family involvement (OR = 3.30; 95% CI, [1.32, 8.22]; P = .015) predicted intention; clinician encouragement did not (P = .283). Facilitating conditions were robust: peers also using VR (OR = 4.23; 95% CI, [1.46, 12.26]; P = .010), having assistance (OR = 7.05; 95% CI, [2.54, 19.61]; P = .0002), and clear instructions (OR = 20.60; 95% CI, [6.87, 61.75]; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate high receptivity to VR and highlight actionable levers, including usability, family engagement, assistance, and instructional supports, for implementation in oncology care.