| Literature DB >> 28115932 |
Xing Chen1, Xing Zhang2.
Abstract
Despite the importance of adoption of mobile health services by an organization on the diffusion of mobile technology in the big data era, it has received minimal attention in literature. This study investigates how relative advantage and perceived credibility affect an organization's adoption of mobile health services, as well as how environmental uncertainty changes the relationship of relative advantage and perceived credibility with adoption. A research model that integrates relative advantage, perceived credibility, environmental uncertainty, and an organization's intention to use mobile health service is developed. Quantitative data are collected from senior managers and information systems managers in 320 Chinese healthcare organizations. The empirical findings show that while relative advantage and perceived credibility both have positive effects on an organization's intention to use mobile health services, relative advantage plays a more important role than perceived credibility. Moreover, environmental uncertainty positively moderates the effect of relative advantage on an organization's adoption of mobile health services. Thus, mobile health services in environments characterized with high levels of uncertainty are more likely to be adopted because of relative advantage than in environments with low levels of uncertainty.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28115932 PMCID: PMC5220515 DOI: 10.1155/2016/3618402
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Telemed Appl ISSN: 1687-6415
Representative sampling of previous studies on MHS adoption.
| Previous studies | Perspective | Motivations | Hygiene factors | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Healthcare professional | Perceived usefulness, tech support and training | Compatibility, MHS self-efficacy, perceived ease of use | Revised technology acceptance model |
|
| ||||
| [ | Customers | Personalization concern | Privacy concern, trust | Privacy calculus |
|
| ||||
| [ | Hospital's professionals | Perceived usefulness, personal | Perceived behavioral control, perceived ease of use | The theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior |
|
| ||||
| [ | Elderly people | Perceived usefulness | Perceived ease of use, resistance to change, technology anxiety, dispositional resistance to change | Dual factor model of technology acceptance |
|
| ||||
| [ | Customers | Response efficacy, subjective norm, perceived vulnerability, perceived severity | Perceived ease of use, response cost, self-efficacy | Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology |
|
| ||||
| [ | Citizens | Perceived value, subject norm, self-actualization need | Perceived behavior control, perceived physical condition, resistant to change technology anxiety | Value attitude behavior model and theory of planned behavior |
|
| ||||
| [ | Diabetic patients | Perceived usefulness | Perceived ease of use, perceived compatibility, perceived reliability, perceived privacy and Security | Revised technology acceptance model |
|
| ||||
| [ | Customers | Facilitating conditions, subjective norms | Modified theory of reasoned action | |
|
| ||||
| [ | Customers | Perceived vulnerability, perceived severity | Response efficacy, self-efficacy | Protection motivation theory |
|
| ||||
| [ | Young adults | Perceived usefulness, social influence | Perceived ease of use, perceived self-efficacy, trust in the application's security, task-technology fit | Revised technology acceptance model |
|
| ||||
| [ | Citizens | Performance expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, waiting time | Effort expectancy, price value | Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology |
Figure 1Research model.
Organizational characteristics.
| Range | Number | Percent | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of employee | <100 | 92 | 28.8% |
| 100–500 | 70 | 21.9% | |
| 500–2000 | 52 | 16.3% | |
| 2000–10000 | 72 | 22.5% | |
| >10000 | 34 | 10.6% | |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||
| Age | 1 year to 5 years | 52 | 16.3% |
| 6 years to 10 years | 56 | 17.5% | |
| 11 years to 15 years | 28 | 8.8% | |
| 16 to 20 years | 88 | 27.5% | |
| >20 years | 96 | 30.0% | |
|
|
|
| |
Constructs and measures.
| Construct | Item # | Measure | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relative advantage (RA) | RA1 | Mobile health services can strengthen the competitive advantage of my organization | [ |
| RA2 | Mobile health services can strengthen the relationship between the customers and my organization | ||
| RA3 | Mobile health services can improve the organizational efficiency | ||
| RA4 | Mobile health services can reduce the operational cost in my organization | ||
| RA5 | Mobile health services can enhance my organization's prestige | ||
|
| |||
| Perceived credibility (PC) | PC1 | Mobile health services will not divulge my organization's private information | [ |
| PC2 | It is secure for my organization to conduct business transactions by using mobile health services | ||
|
| |||
| Environmental uncertainty (EU) | EU1 | In our industry, the technology of products or services changes quickly | [ |
| EU2 | Our industry has tough competition in terms of the quality or price of products or services | ||
| EU3 | Our industry has considerable diversity with regard to competition | ||
|
| |||
| Intention to use mobile health services (IUMHS) | IUMHS1 | My organization has a high intention to use mobile health services | [ |
| IUMHS2 | My organization intends to learn about using mobile health services | ||
| IUMHS3 | My organization plans to use mobile health services | ||
| IUMHS4 | My organization prefers mobile health services over other types of services | ||
The item-to-construct correlations.
| RA | PC | EU | IUMHS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RA1 |
| 0.33 | 0.25 | 0.42 |
| RA2 |
| 0.30 | 0.31 | 0.50 |
| RA3 |
| 0.25 | 0.32 | 0.53 |
| RA4 |
| 0.28 | 0.29 | 0.51 |
| RA5 |
| 0.17 | 0.23 | 0.42 |
| PC1 | 0.27 |
| 0.25 | 0.35 |
| PC2 | 0.30 |
| 0.27 | 0.36 |
| EU1 | 0.25 | 0.15 |
| 0.28 |
| EU2 | 0.33 | 0.28 |
| 0.39 |
| EU3 | 0.27 | 0.29 |
| 0.31 |
| IUMHS1 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.33 |
|
| IUMHS2 | 0.53 | 0.35 | 0.37 |
|
| IUMHS3 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.33 |
|
| IUMHS4 | 0.53 | 0.35 | 0.37 |
|
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability.
| Mean | SD | Cronbach's | RA | PC | EU | IUMHS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RA | 2.37 | 0.92 | 0.90 | CR = 0.93 | |||
| AVE = 0.72 | |||||||
| PC | 2.51 | 0.96 | 0.78 | 0.31 | CR = 0.90 | ||
| AVE = 0.82 | |||||||
| EU | 2.45 | 1.13 | 0.81 | 0.13 | 0.09 | CR = 0.89 | |
| AVE = 0.74 | |||||||
| IUMHS | 2.70 | 0.83 | 0.93 | 0.57 | 0.39 | 0.38 | CR = 0.95 |
| AVE = 0.83 |
Note: ∗∗ indicates significance at the 0.01 level.
Results of hierarchical regression analysis.
| Model 1 | Model 2a | Model 2b | Model 3a | Model 3b | Model 3c | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Block 1: control variables | ||||||
| Organization size | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 |
| Organization age | −0.19 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 |
| Block 2: main effects | ||||||
| Relative advantage | 0.52 | 0.46 | 0.47 | 0.46 | 0.47 | |
| Perceived credibility | 0.31 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.27 | |
| Environmental uncertainty | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.17 | ||
| Block 3: moderating effects | ||||||
| Relative advantage × environmental uncertainty | 0.08 | 0.11 | ||||
| Perceived credibility × environmental uncertainty | −0.03 | -0.07 | ||||
| Δ | 0.348 | 0.027 | 0.014 | 0.001 | 0.045 | |
| | 0.574 | 0.047 | 0.025 | 0.002 | 0.078 | |
| | 0.046 | 0.394 | 0.421 | 0.435 | 0.422 | 0.439 |
| | 180.317 | 14.596 | 7.731 | 0.540 | 24.171 |
Note: ∗ and ∗∗ indicate significance at the 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively. One-tailed t-test was performed as the direction of differences was hypothesized.
Results of hypothesis testing.
| Hypothesis | Result |
|---|---|
| (H1): Relative advantage → IUMHS | Support |
| (H2): Perceived credibility → IUMHS | Support |
| (H3): Relative advantage > perceived credibility | Support |
| (H4): Relative advantage × environmental uncertainty → IUMHS | Support |
| (H5): Perceived credibility × environmental uncertainty → IUMHS | No support |