| Literature DB >> 22047810 |
Chulmo Koo1, Yulia Wati, Keeho Park, Min Kyung Lim.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The fact that patient satisfaction with primary care clinical practices and physician-patient communications has decreased gradually has brought a new opportunity to the online channel as a supplementary service to provide additional information.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22047810 PMCID: PMC3222204 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1574
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Research model.
Definitions of constructs
| Construct | Definition |
| Knowledge expectation (Adapted from [ | Customers’ existing attitudes or beliefs regarding expected levels of knowledge they may gain by accessing the website |
| Knowledge confirmation (Adapted from [ | A cognitive belief (the extent to which user’s knowledge expectation of information systems use is realized during actual use) derived from prior information systems use |
| Information quality [ | Quality of the information system output |
| Information presentation [ | The degree to which information presentation effectively facilitates interpretation and understanding |
| Website attractiveness [ | Website’s graphic style, that is, the tangible aspect of the online environment that reflects the “look and feel” of the website |
| Perceived usefulness [ | An individual’s salient belief that using the technology (website) will enhance his or her job performance |
| Consumer satisfaction [ | The summary psychological state resulting when the emotion surrounding confirmed or disconfirmed expectations are coupled with the customer’s prior feelings about the consumption experience |
Confirmatory factor analysis results
| Variable and Item | Item Number | Standardized | Construct Reliability | Average Variance | |
| .92 | .68 | ||||
| The website provides accurate information. | IQ1 | .84 | |||
| The website provides up-to-date information. | IQ2 | .74 | |||
| The website provides relevant information. | IQ3 | .82 | |||
| The website provides the content that supports the website's intended purpose. | IQ4 | .86 | |||
| The website consists of appropriate level of information detail. | IQ5 | .88 | |||
| .87 | .63 | ||||
| The overview, table of contents, and/or summaries/headings are clearly organized. | IP1 | .79 | |||
| The structure of information presentation is logical. | IP2 | .84 | |||
| The information presented is understandable. | IP4 | .77 | |||
| The amount of information presented was just right. | IP5 | .78 | |||
| .93 | .69 | ||||
| Overall, the website's color use is attractive. | WA1 | .87 | |||
| This website has visually attractive screen layouts. | WA2 | .87 | |||
| This website has an attractive screen background and pattern. | WA3 | .85 | |||
| This website has eye-catching images or title on homepage. | WA4 | .82 | |||
| The multimedia contents are attractive. | WA5 | .80 | |||
| This website is fun to explore. | WA6 | .74 | |||
| .84 | .72 | ||||
| Using this website will increase my knowledge level about cancer-related subjects. | KE2 | .87 | |||
| Using this website will improve my skills through a learning process. | KE3 | .83 | |||
| .92 | .86 | ||||
| I have learned new knowledge by using this website (as I expected). | KC1 | .93 | |||
| I have improved my skills by using this website (as I expected). | KC2 | .92 | |||
| .90 | .69 | ||||
| Web tutorial/e-learning | PU1 | .89 | |||
| Tutorial material in a printable PDF file/e-books | PU2 | .85 | |||
| PowerPoint slide presentation | PU3 | .79 | |||
| Testimonial and Q/A content | PU4 | .79 | |||
| .92 | .86 | ||||
| Considering all things, I'm very satisfied with this website. | SF1 | .92 | |||
| Overall, my interaction with this website is very satisfying. | SF2 | .93 | |||
Discriminant validity
| Variable | IQ | IP | WA | KE | KC | PU | SF |
| Information quality (IQ) | .83 | ||||||
| Information presentation (IP) | .72 | .80 | |||||
| Website attractiveness (WA) | .51 | .65 | .83 | ||||
| Knowledge expectation (KE) | .59 | .54 | .48 | .85 | |||
| Knowledge confirmation (KC) | .70 | .69 | .61 | .62 | .92 | ||
| Perceived usefulness (PU) | .52 | .59 | .45 | .51 | .54 | .83 | |
| User satisfaction (SF) | .57 | .65 | .71 | .54 | .61 | .56 | .92 |
Hypothetical correlation among constructs (n = 198)
| Variable | IQ | IP | WA | KE | KC | UF | PU | SF |
| IQ | .83 | |||||||
| IP | .72* | .80 | ||||||
| WA | .51* | .65* | .83 | |||||
| KE | .59* | .54* | .48** | .85 | ||||
| KC | .70* | .69* | .61* | .62* | .92 | |||
| UF | .19 | .17 | .08 | .18 | .21 | 1.00 | ||
| PU | .52* | .59* | .45** | .51* | .54* | .24 | .83 | |
| SF | .57* | .65* | .71* | .54* | .61* | .24 | .56* | .92 |
| .50* | .57* | .44** | .49** | .52* | .00 | |||
| .54* | .66* | .47** | .59* | .56* | .00 | |||
| .55* | .64* | .70* | .52* | .59* | .00 | .53* | ||
| .60* | .73* | .76* | .62* | .64* | .00 | .60* |
*P < .05
**P < .01.
Figure 2Hypotheses results.