Factors Affecting RFID Subcutaneous Microchips Usage

Abstract

Microchips are used for many years for different purposes. Nevertheless, recently applications of radio frequency identification technology have been progressed tremendously with the potential to permeate throughout society as valuable tool for enabling automatic identification and management. However, they are perceived as threats at several levels that impede its implementation. Most of the research discusses the adoption of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) devices from the provider's point of view. Thus, it would be of interest to examine the factors of RFID subcutaneous microchip (RFID-SM) usage, adoption and diffusion by individuals from various perspectives, particularly in developing countries. Knowledge upon the factors that drive RFID adoption is a crucial step in creating the policies required for its successful implementation. This quantitative, descriptive study investigated whether young people in Serbia would be willing to use subcutaneous microchip. Preliminary findings indicate that positive attitudes prevail for the perceived usefulness and ease of use, while suspicions of confidentiality and privacy are strong, and what is most surprising none of the respondents showed willingness to use microchip implants for everyday home activities. Since the process of individual users' acceptance of technology is very complex, the full range of variables should be investigated from broader perspective.

Modeling Subcutaneous Microchip Implant Acceptance in the General Population: A Cross-Sectional Survey about Concerns and Expectations

“…This determinant refers to an individual's perception that using SMs will be associated with physical harm. "Health Concerns" is also present in the TAM models proposed by Čičević et al [33] and Werber et al [5]. Indeed, health risks of SMs were a major concern among the study participants, with many expressing fear and uneasiness with having something implanted inside their bodies.…”

“…Researchers have used various technology acceptance models to understand what factors impact the acceptance of SMs in certain populations. Čičević et al [33] considered three original components of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [34], which are Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and Behavioral Intentions to Use. In addition, they added two additional external variables ("Health Concerns" and "Perceived Trust").…”

“…Most published works use some type of a model as an entry point to their research with the end users [5,33]. Some researchers claim that this may have prevented them from collecting diverse perspectives [33], as participants were limited to answering Likert scale questions.…”

“…Most published works use some type of a model as an entry point to their research with the end users [5,33]. Some researchers claim that this may have prevented them from collecting diverse perspectives [33], as participants were limited to answering Likert scale questions. In other studies, determinants are based on perspectives of smaller sample sizes [35,39], and/or homogeneous study populations [33,[35][36][37], and/or are restricted to certain contexts [5,14].…”

“…Some researchers claim that this may have prevented them from collecting diverse perspectives [33], as participants were limited to answering Likert scale questions. In other studies, determinants are based on perspectives of smaller sample sizes [35,39], and/or homogeneous study populations [33,[35][36][37], and/or are restricted to certain contexts [5,14]. Moreover, it is not always clear what was the knowledge/familiarity level of participants regarding microchip implants.…”