Technology Readiness for O & P Results are IN!

Hey OANPList Community!

I have the results from the Technology Readiness Survey for O & P which was recently closed. As many of your mentioned the word “technology” was intentionally vague, because it applies to a number of varied things you are engaged in.

We had 201 respondents over 14 days, 60% were CPO’s, 12% CO, and 21% CP’s, but there were only couple prosthetic and orthotic assistants. This seems to be the trend as more practitioners are CPO’s now from when it was historically one third of each.

The office context was 29% Single Office, Private, owned then 18% Regional Multi-Center, Corporate Owned, and 17% Institution: Hospital, Rehab Center, VA, or DOD, then 13% Cross-regional, Multi-center, Corporate Owned which may be a little underrepresented.

As always with these surveys more experienced clinicians are the majority with 37% having 26 or more years of experience. The next highest groups were 0-5 years with 14% which is a little more than usual, and 14% 21-25 years.

The overall Technology Readiness was pretty high at 3.83 s=.36 which is actually quite high. With respect to the component parts of Technology Readiness the aggregate group was showed a very low-level of Technology Discomfort (TD) and Technology Insecurity (TS) or the inherent anxiety and fear that technology presents at 3.94 s=.49 and 3.99 s=.46 respectively. Lowest was Technology Innovativeness (TI) or tendency to put innovation into practice at 3.5 s=.75. Technology Optimism (TO) or attitude toward technology was 3.89 s=.64. What this means is that O & P has collectively a high level of receptiveness for technology is high and very little sense of risk with respect to technology.

These scores were much higher than 2015 where I survey TRI-2.0 for my dissertation was 3.29 and the components of TO=4.05, TI=3.63, TS=2.52, TD=3.04. It could be that, when it comes to more Orthotic/Prosthetically directed questions, practitioners, in general, have much more confidence!

When comparing settings Research contexts had the highest level of Technology Readiness at 4.21, while Regional Multi-Center Private-Owned had the lowest at 3.70, but not significantly. By Certification, Prosthetists were only very slightly higher at 3.94 and CPO’s were lowest at 3.79 but not significantly. In terms of Experience those with 26 or more years had the highest level of readiness with 3.90, with 16-20 years the lowest at 3.76, again not significantly. Anecdotally this seems to mirror the “Career Happiness Index” that shows an initial high point, decline, then uptick before retirement.

With correlations there were no significant relationships which tell you experience, context, and certification really had no effect on Technology Readiness. So as Rogers (2003) mentions, innovative behavior and attitudes are independent of age! There are slight difference with context and certification, but they are not significant in this survey.

There were some correlations between questions that were a bit interesting. The questions regarding the promise of Technology for better Quality of Life, Mobility, Increased Patient Control, and Practitioner Productivity were highly and significantly interrelated. Also, expectedly those who tried technology first were related to those who liked to figure things out on there own and give advice to others. Also there was a slight, but significant relationship between “Enhancing Patient-Clinician Relationship” and “Technology not causing Over-dependence.” Although in the comments over-dependence on technology was expressed as a concern.

When counting those who rated a 4 or 5 “Quality of Life”, “Aiding Mobility,” “Confidence with Manufacturer Help,” and “Aiding the Patient Relationship” were high. However those who indicated a 1 or 2 were most common for putting “Technology Immediately to Use” and “Figuring Out on their Own.” This may mean that quality of life, mobility, and confidence with resources are high, whereas others less confident may wait for help to implement with patients. Still a large portion of us are willing to give advice and help others from the previous correlation.

The comments were great, but one theme was that technology does not necessarily present the greatest risk to clinicians, but rather supporting and getting the adequate reimbursement for that technology creates the greatest anxiety. Many had voiced confidence that experts with consultant groups, internal professionals, and experts from the manufacturers are available to leap the “chasm of innovation” to adopt more complex technology.

Let me know if you have any other questions. I hope this can be helpful to other fellow innovators!

Thanks so much!

Gerry

Gerald Stark, Ph.D, MSEM, CPO/L, FAAOP(D)
Senior Clinical Specialist
Adjunct Instructor
gerald.e.stark@gmail.com