Trust in Medical Technology by Patients and Health Care Providers in Obstetric Work Systems.
Multiple types of users (i.e. patients and care providers) have experiences with the same technologies in health care environments and may have different processes for developing trust in those technologies. The objective of this study was to assess how patients and care providers make decisions about the trustworthiness of mutually used medical technology in an obstetric work system. Using a grounded theory methodology, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 patients who had recently given birth and 12 obstetric health care providers to examine the decision-making process for developing trust in technologies used in an obstetric work system. We expected the two user groups to have similar criteria for developing trust in the technologies, though we found patients and physicians differed in processes for developing trust. Trust in care providers, the technologies' characteristics and how care providers used technology were all related to trust in medical technology for the patient participant group. Trustworthiness of the system and trust in self were related to trust in medical technology for the physician participant group. Our findings show that users with different perspectives of the system have different criteria for developing trust in medical technologies.
Montague
Enid N H
EN
University of Wisconsin Madison, Industrial and Systems Engineering, Industrial and Systems Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison, 3270 Mechanical Engineering, 1513 University Avenue, Madison, 53706 United States & Industrial and Systems Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison, 3270 Mechanical Engineering, 1513 University Avenue, Madison, 53706 United States.
Winchester
Woodrow W
WW
Kleiner
Brian M
BM
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1999 Jul 1;56(13):1319-25
10683129
Hum Factors. 2004 Spring;46(1):50-80
15151155
J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Feb;24(2):252-5
19089501
J Gen Intern Med. 1998 Oct;13(10):681-6
9798815
Arch Fam Med. 2000 Nov-Dec;9(10):1156-63
11115223
Med Care. 1998 May;36(5):728-39
9596063
Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Aug;76(2):245-50
2371029
J Fam Pract. 1998 Sep;47(3):213-20
9752374
Psychol Rep. 1990 Dec;67(3 Pt 2):1091-100
2084735
Birth. 2006 Sep;33(3):171-4
16948716
Health Serv Res. 2002 Oct;37(5):1419-39
12479504
Ergonomics. 1992 Oct;35(10):1243-70
1516577
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005 May-Jun;12(3):306-14
15684128
Fam Pract. 2002 Oct;19(5):476-83
12356698
Soc Sci Med. 1990;30(11):1161-72
2360052
Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2006 Sep 29;55(1):1-101
17051727
Med Care. 1999 May;37(5):510-7
10335753
Nurse Educ. 2003 Jul-Aug;28(4):175-8
12878896
Health Serv Res. 2002 Feb;37(1):187-202
11949920
Ann Fam Med. 2005 Jul-Aug;3(4):339-47
16046567
Stanford Law Rev. 1999 Apr;51(4):807-37
10557629
Acad Emerg Med. 2000 Nov;7(11):1239-43
11073472
J Gen Intern Med. 2000 Jul;15(7):509-13
10940139
Hum Factors. 2007 Oct;49(5):759-72
17915595
MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2002 Jul-Aug;27(4):249
12131278
J Fam Pract. 1997 Feb;44(2):169-76
9040520
Birth Gaz. 1994 Winter;11(1):24-5
7881312
Birth. 2006 Sep;33(3):221-8
16948722
J Adv Nurs. 2006 Jan;53(1):114-22; discussion 122-4
16422705
Ann Fam Med. 2005 May-Jun;3(3):229-34
15928226
Health Serv Res. 2004 Aug;39(4 Pt 1):813-23
15230929
Arch Intern Med. 2005 Aug 8-22;165(15):1749-55
16087823
Psychol Bull. 1954 Jul;51(4):327-58
13177800
Birth. 2006 Sep;33(3):245-50
16948725
Hum Factors. 2006 Summer;48(2):241-56
16884046
Ergonomics. 2003 Jul 15;46(9):882-903
12775487
Health Serv Res. 2005 Aug;40(4):957-77
16033487