TMU
Owner
Tarbiat Modares University (TMU) is the owner of HEHP.
0.8
Cite Score 2025
Volume 13, Issue 4 (2025)
Health Educ Health Promot 2025, 13(4): 607-615 |
Back to browse issues page
History
Received: 2025/09/5 | Accepted: 2025/11/3 | Published: 2025/11/10
Received: 2025/09/5 | Accepted: 2025/11/3 | Published: 2025/11/10
How to cite this article
Lutfiya I, Damayanti R, Prasetya T, Rahmawati N, Ibad M. Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to Explore Physical Workload Toward Web-Based Screening. Health Educ Health Promot 2025; 13 (4) :607-615
URL: http://hehp.daneshafarand.org/article-4-82904-en.html
URL: http://hehp.daneshafarand.org/article-4-82904-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Health, Faculty of Vocational Studies, University of Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
2- Faculty of Health, University of Nahdlatul Ulama, Surabaya, Indonesia
2- Faculty of Health, University of Nahdlatul Ulama, Surabaya, Indonesia
Abstract (767 Views)
Aims: Using the technology acceptance model, this study aimed to determine whether a web-based screening tool to investigate physical burden is acceptable.
Instruments & Methods: This one-shot case study was conducted on 239 workers from a manufacturing company in East Java. Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire developed through interviews, along with a 15-minute trial of a web-based workload assessment application, which was revised based on user feedback. Data were analyzed using SmartPLS software to test the technology acceptance model through path analysis.
Findings: Perceived utility (p<0.05) and perceived simplicity of use (p<0.05) of the application were positively and significantly influenced by Internet usage experience. Perceived usefulness had no significant effect on the intention to use the program (p>0.05), while perceived ease of use had a large and significant effect on future intention to use the application (behavioral intention; p<0.05). Additionally, actual system utilization was positively and significantly influenced by the desire to utilize the program. The data showed an excellent fit to the technology acceptance model.
Conclusion: The web-based screening tool to explore physical workload is well-received by workers, as its ease of use significantly influences their interest and future use.
Instruments & Methods: This one-shot case study was conducted on 239 workers from a manufacturing company in East Java. Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire developed through interviews, along with a 15-minute trial of a web-based workload assessment application, which was revised based on user feedback. Data were analyzed using SmartPLS software to test the technology acceptance model through path analysis.
Findings: Perceived utility (p<0.05) and perceived simplicity of use (p<0.05) of the application were positively and significantly influenced by Internet usage experience. Perceived usefulness had no significant effect on the intention to use the program (p>0.05), while perceived ease of use had a large and significant effect on future intention to use the application (behavioral intention; p<0.05). Additionally, actual system utilization was positively and significantly influenced by the desire to utilize the program. The data showed an excellent fit to the technology acceptance model.
Conclusion: The web-based screening tool to explore physical workload is well-received by workers, as its ease of use significantly influences their interest and future use.
| | Full-Text (HTML) (2 Views)
References
1. Boyle I, Rong Y, Brown DC. A review and analysis of current computer-aided fixture design approaches. Robot Comput Integr Manuf. 2011;27(1):1-12. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.rcim.2010.05.008]
2. Rodríguez-Pulido AG, Arrieta-Córdova AF, Arce-Huamani MA. Prevalence and correlation of workload and musculoskeletal disorders in industrial workers: A cross-sectional study. Front Rehabil Sci. 2025;6:1677621. [Link] [DOI:10.3389/fresc.2025.1677621]
3. Bagherifard F, Daneshmandi H, Ziaei M, Ghaem H, Khoshbakht R, Jaberi O, et al. Comparison of physical workload and physical work capacity among municipality cleaners in Shiraz to determine number of workers needed to counterbalance physical workload. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2022;14(1):85. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s13102-022-00476-4]
4. Mokhtarinia H, Alimohammadi B, Sadeghi-Yarandi M, Torabi-Gudarzi S, Soltanzadeh A, Nikbakht N. Investigating the relationship between physical, cognitive, and environmental factors of ergonomics with the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders: A case study in a car-parts manufacturing industry. Work. 2024;79(1):215-29. [Link] [DOI:10.3233/WOR-230155]
5. Lutfiya I, Ibad M, Rahmawati NA, Damayanti R, Prasetya TAE, Al Khowwas I. The impact of physical workload and personal factors on nutritional status among manufacturing workers: A cross-sectional study. Indones J Occup Saf Health. 2025;14(1):79-88. [Link] [DOI:10.20473/ijosh.v14i1.2025.79-88]
6. Arefian S, Laybidi MI, Vahedi M, Melloh M, Mokhtarinia HR. Impact of mental and physical workload on work function in office workers with musculoskeletal disorders. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025;26(1):867. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s12891-025-09147-0]
7. Kumareswaran S, Muhadi SU, Sathasivam J, Thurairasu V. Prevalence of occupational stress and workload among laboratory staff. Int J Public Health Sci. 2023;12(3):1014-20. [Link] [DOI:10.11591/ijphs.v12i3.23053]
8. Tonnon SC, Robroek SRJ, Van Der Beek AJ, Burdorf A, Van Der Ploeg HP, Caspers M, et al. Physical workload and obesity have a synergistic effect on work ability among construction workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2019;92(6):855-64. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s00420-019-01422-7]
9. Robroek SJW, Järvholm B, Van Der Beek AJ, Proper KI, Wahlström J, Burdorf A. Influence of obesity and physical workload on disability benefits among construction workers followed up for 37 years. Occup Environ Med. 2017;74(9):621-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1136/oemed-2016-104059]
10. Chenarboo FJ, Hekmatshoar R, Fallahi M. The influence of physical and mental workload on the safe behavior of employees in the automobile industry. Heliyon. 2022;8(10):e11034. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11034]
11. Aminian NO, Michael W, Ghoreyshi M. Cognitive workload assessment: A comprehensive review. J Aircr Spacecr Technol. 2025;9(1):12-33. [Link] [DOI:10.3844/jastsp.2025.12.33]
12. Jung HS, Jung HS. Establishment of overall workload assessment technique for various tasks and workplaces. Int J Ind Ergon. 2001;28(6):341-53. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0169-8141(01)00040-3]
13. Eggemeier FT. Properties of workload assessment techniques. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N, editors. Human mental workload. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1988. p. 41-62. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62382-1]
14. Kharisma B. Surfing alone? The Internet and social capital: Evidence from Indonesia. J Econ Struct. 2022;11(1):8. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s40008-022-00267-7]
15. Fitzpatrick PJ. Improving health literacy using the power of digital communications to achieve better health outcomes for patients and practitioners. Front Digit Health. 2023;5:1264780. [Link] [DOI:10.3389/fdgth.2023.1264780]
16. Paganin G, Margheritti S, Farhane-Medina NZ, Simbula S, Mazzetti G. Health, stress and technologies: Integrating technology acceptance and health belief models for smartphone-based stress intervention. Healthcare. 2023;11(23):3030. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/healthcare11233030]
17. Natasia SR, Wiranti YT, Parastika A. Acceptance analysis of NUADU as e-learning platform using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) approach. Procedia Comput Sci. 2022;197(1):512-20. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.168]
18. Yasin SM, Ismail N, Masngut MI, Abdullah NN, Yasin NE, Omar M, et al. Protocol of health screening related to occupational diseases in 100000 workers in critical sectors: A cross-sectional study with worksite risk assessment. BMJ Open. 2024;14(8):e083796. [Link] [DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083796]
19. Guan Z, Sajeevan Samarasinghe DA, Yiu TW, Laird I, Reddy R. A web-based safety management platform to enhance safety for Chinese migrant construction workers. Saf Sci. 2025;181(1):106703. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106703]
20. Jern-Matintupa MM, Riipinen AM, Laine MK. Impact of digital interventions in occupational health care: A systematic review. Mayo Clin Proc Digit Health. 2025;3(2):100216. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.mcpdig.2025.100216]
21. Brunzini A, Peruzzini M, Grandi F, Khamaisi RK, Pellicciari M. A preliminary experimental study on the workers' workload assessment to design industrial products and processes. Appl Sci. 2021;11(24):12066. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/app112412066]
22. Pütz S, Rick V, Mertens A, Nitsch V. Using IoT devices for sensor-based monitoring of employees' mental workload: Investigating managers' expectations and concerns. Appl Ergon. 2022;102(11):103739. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103739]
23. Sarma Sangkot H, Sri Dewi Hastuti Suryandari E, Wijaya A. Health screening of the elderly using geriatric mobile apps (SIM Lansia) in Malang primary health care. KnE Med. 2023;2023:303-14. [Link] [DOI:10.18502/kme.v3i3.13517]
24. Ooi CY, Ng CJ, Sales A, Teo CH. Pilot implementation study of a web-based men's health screening app in primary care during COVID-19: A mixed-methods approach. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24(1):1219. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-11702-9]
25. Clarke JR, Gibson M, Savaglio M, Navani R, Mousa M, Boyle JA. Digital screening for mental health in pregnancy and postpartum: A systematic review. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2024;27(4):489-526. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s00737-024-01427-3]
26. Schliemann D, Tan MM, Hoe WMK, Mohan D, Taib NA, Donnelly M, et al. mHealth interventions to improve cancer screening and early detection: Scoping review of reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(8):e36316. [Link] [DOI:10.2196/36316]
27. Isaac O, Abdullah Z, Ramayah T, Mutahar A, Alrajawy I. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived compatibility, and net benefits: An empirical study of internet usage among employees in Yemen. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Postgraduate Education. Shah Alam: MARA Technological University; 2016. [Link]
28. Al-Adwan AS, Li N, Al-Adwan A, Abbasi GA, Albelbisi NA, Habibi A. Extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to predict university students' intentions to use metaverse-based learning platforms. Educ Inf Technol. 2023;28(11):15381-413. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10639-023-11816-3]
29. Hendricks JW, Smith A, Peres SC, Sasangohar F. Workers' acceptance of digital procedures: An application of the technology acceptance model. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors. 2023;11(1-2):59-68. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/24725838.2023.2240342]
30. Zhang M, Shu L, Luo X, Yuan M, Zheng X. Virtual reality technology in construction safety training: Extended technology acceptance model. Autom Constr. 2022;135(5):104113. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.autcon.2021.104113]
31. Choi B, Hwang S, Lee S. What drives construction workers' acceptance of wearable technologies in the workplace?: Indoor localization and wearable health devices for occupational safety and health. Autom Constr. 2017;84:31-41. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.autcon.2017.08.005]
32. Alsyouf A, Lutfi A, Alsubahi N, Alhazmi FN, Al-Mugheed K, Anshasi RJ, et al. The use of a Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to predict patients' usage of a personal health record system: The role of security, privacy, and usability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(2):1347. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/ijerph20021347]
33. Kamal SA, Shafiq M, Kakria P. Investigating acceptance of telemedicine services through an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Technol Soc. 2019;60(4):101212. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101212]
34. Ashmawy R, Zeina S, Kamal E, Shelbaya K, Gawish N, Sharaf S, et al. A reliable tool for assessment of acceptance of e-consultation service in hospitals: The modified e-consultation Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire. J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2025;100(1):6. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s42506-025-00187-x]
35. Khan MI, Saleh MA, Quazi A. Social media adoption by health professionals: A TAM-based study. Informatics. 2021;8(1):6. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/informatics8010006]
36. Haleem A, Javaid M, Singh RP, Suman R. Telemedicine for healthcare: Capabilities, features, barriers, and applications. Sens Int. 2021;2:100117. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.sintl.2021.100117]
37. Forcier C, Constant A, Grisard F, Clair E, Val-Laillet D, Thibault R, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of a mobile-assisted screening and brief intervention for multiple health behaviors in medical settings. J Prim Care Community Health. 2024;15. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/21501319241303604]
38. Dorney E, Hammarberg K, Rodgers R, Black KI. Optimization of a web-based self-assessment tool for preconception health in people of reproductive age in Australia: User feedback and user-experience testing study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2024;11:e63334. [Link] [DOI:10.2196/63334]