title: Public claims about automatic external defibrillators: an online consumer opinions study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Patients are no longer passive recipients of health care, and increasingly engage in health communications outside of the traditional patient and health care professional relationship. As a result, patient opinions and health related judgements are now being informed by a wide range of social, media, and online information sources. Government initiatives recognise self-delivery of health care as a valuable means of responding to the anticipated increased global demand for health resources. Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs), designed for the treatment of Sudden Cardiac Arrest (SCA), have recently become available for 'over the counter' purchase with no need for a prescription. This paper explores the claims and argumentation of lay persons and health care practitioners and professionals relating to these, and how these may impact on the acceptance, adoption and use of these devices within the home context.
  
  
  METHODS
  We carry out a thematic content analysis of a novel form of Internet-based data: online consumer opinions of AED devices posted on Amazon.com, the world's largest online retailer. A total of #83 online consumer reviews of home AEDs are analysed. The analysis is both inductive, identifying themes that emerged from the data, exploring the parameters of public debate relating to these devices, and also driven by theory, centring around the parameters that may impact upon the acceptance, adoption and use of these devices within the home as indicated by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Five high-level themes around which arguments for and against the adoption of home AEDs are identified and considered in the context of TAM. These include opinions relating to device usability, usefulness, cost, emotional implications of device ownership, and individual patient risk status. Emotional implications associated with AED acceptance, adoption and use emerged as a notable factor that is not currently reflected within the existing TAM.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The value, credibility and implications of the findings of this study are considered within the context of existing AED research, and related to technology acceptance theory. From a methodological perspective, this study demonstrates the potential value of online consumer reviews as a novel data source for exploring the parameters of public debate relating to emerging health care technologies.
authors: Department of Computer Science and Technology, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU1 3JU, UK. arthur.money@brunel.ac.uk
authors: Arthur G
authors: AG
authors: Money
authors: Julie
authors: J
authors: Barnett
authors: Jasna
authors: J
authors: Kuljis
references: Health Commun. 2009 Dec;24(8):703-10
references: 20183379
references: Health Commun. 2008;23(1):1-12
references: 18443988
references: Health Commun. 2008;23(1):34-44
references: 18443991
references: Int J Med Inform. 2007 Jan;76(1):66-77
references: 16901749
references: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1988 Nov;11(11 Pt 2):2029-34
references: 2463583
references: Health Commun. 2010 Apr;25(3):238-46
references: 20461609
references: Sociol Health Illn. 2007 Nov;29(7):1043-58
references: 18092982
references: Qual Health Res. 2006 Apr;16(4):538-46
references: 16513995
references: BMJ. 2003 Jun 14;326(7402):1279-80
references: 12805129
references: J Biomed Inform. 2010 Feb;43(1):159-72
references: 19615467
references: Int J Med Inform. 2009 Apr;78(4):248-58
references: 18783983
references: Health Aff (Millwood). 2000 May-Jun;19(3):204-12
references: 10812800
references: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010 Jan 29;10:6
references: 20113486
references: Europace. 2009 Oct;11(10):1353-8
references: 19700472
references: Health Commun. 2007;21(1):73-83
references: 17461754
references: Health Commun. 2008;23(3):270-81
references: 18569056
references: N Engl J Med. 2002 Oct 17;347(16):1242-7
references: 12393821
references: Resuscitation. 2003 Feb;56(2):167-72
references: 12589990
references: Health Commun. 2008 Jul;23(4):358-68
references: 18702000
references: N Engl J Med. 2000 Oct 26;343(17):1206-9
references: 11071670
references: Soc Sci Med. 2007 Mar;64(6):1297-310
references: 17174016
references: BMJ. 2009 Mar 23;338:b876
references: 19307278
references: Med Care Res Rev. 2007 Dec;64(6):650-72
references: 17717378
references: Soc Sci Med. 1988;26(6):583-5
references: 3363399
references: Soc Sci Med. 2004 Nov;59(9):1783-93
references: 15312914
references: Qual Health Res. 2010 May;20(5):595-606
references: 20008955
references: Nurse Educ Today. 2010 Aug;30(6):509-14
references: 19959262
references: N Engl J Med. 2008 Apr 24;358(17):1793-804
references: 18381485
references: Health Expect. 2005 Dec;8(4):345-51
references: 16266422
references: Heart Lung. 2002 May-Jun;31(3):173-85
references: 12011808
references: Chronic Illn. 2008 Dec;4(4):247-56
references: 19091933
references: Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Aug;32(2):200-7
references: 9701303
references: Int J Qual Health Care. 2008 Apr;20(2):123-9
references: 18222963