Acceptance of smart sensing, its determinants, and the efficacy of an acceptance-facilitating intervention in people with diabetes: results from a randomized controlled trial.

Background: Mental health problems are prevalent among people with diabetes, yet often under-diagnosed. Smart sensing, utilizing passively collected digital markers through digital devices, is an innovative diagnostic approach that can support mental health screening and intervention. However, the acceptance of this technology remains unclear. Grounded on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), this study aimed to investigate (1) the acceptance of smart sensing in a diabetes sample, (2) the determinants of acceptance, and (3) the effectiveness of an acceptance facilitating intervention (AFI).

Methods: A total of  = 132 participants with diabetes were randomized to an intervention group (IG) or a control group (CG). The IG received a video-based AFI on smart sensing and the CG received an educational video on mindfulness. Acceptance and its potential determinants were assessed through an online questionnaire as a single post-measurement. The self-reported behavioral intention, interest in using a smart sensing application and installation of a smart sensing application were assessed as outcomes. The data were analyzed using latent structural equation modeling and t-tests.

Results: The acceptance of smart sensing at baseline was average (= 12.64, = 4.24) with 27.8% showing low, 40.3% moderate, and 31.9% high acceptance. Performance expectancy (= 0.64, < 0.001), social influence (= 0.23, = .032) and trust (= 0.27, = .040) were identified as potential determinants of acceptance, explaining 84% of the variance. SEM model fit was acceptable (RMSEA = 0.073, SRMR = 0.059). The intervention did not significantly impact acceptance (= 0.25, 95%-CI: -0.16-0.65, = .233), interest (OR= 0.76, 95% CI: 0.38-1.52, = .445) or app installation rates (OR= 1.13, 95% CI: 0.47-2.73, = .777).

Discussion: The high variance in acceptance supports a need for acceptance facilitating procedures. The analyzed model supported performance expectancy, social influence, and trust as potential determinants of smart sensing acceptance; perceived benefit was the most influential factor towards acceptance. The AFI was not significant. Future research should further explore factors contributing to smart sensing acceptance and address implementation barriers.