| Literature DB >> 28960026 |
Heui Sug Jo1, Tae Min Song2, Bong Gi Kim3.
Abstract
With the increasing use of the internet and the spread of smartphones, health information seekers obtain considerable information through the internet. As the amount of online health information increases, the need for quality management of health information has been emphasized. The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors affecting the intention of using accredited online health information by applying the extended technology acceptance model (Extended-TAM). An online survey was conducted from September 15, 2016 to October 3, 2016, on 500 men and women aged 19-69 years. The results showed that the greatest factor influencing the acceptance of the accredited health information was perceived usefulness, and the expectation for the quality of the accreditation system was the most important mediator variable. In order to establish the health information accreditation system as a means to provide easy and useful information to the consumers, it is necessary to carry out quality management and promote the system through the continuous monitoring of the accreditation system.Entities:
Keywords: Accreditation; Health Information; Internet Use; Quality; Technology Acceptance Model
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28960026 PMCID: PMC5639054 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.11.1757
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Korean Med Sci ISSN: 1011-8934 Impact factor: 2.153
Fig. 1Research model for predicting acceptance factors for accredited online health information based on the TAM.
TAM = technology acceptance model.
The demographic characteristics of the respondents
| Category | Frequency | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 255 (51.0) |
| Female | 245 (49.0) | |
| Age | 19–29 | 91 (18.2) |
| 30–39 | 103 (20.6) | |
| 40–49 | 120 (24.0) | |
| 50–59 | 114 (22.8) | |
| 60–69 | 72 (14.4) | |
| Education | Middle school or below | 10 (2.0) |
| High school | 95 (19.0) | |
| College in school | 39 (7.8) | |
| College graduate | 298 (59.6) | |
| Graduate school or above | 58 (11.6) | |
| Subjective health status | Very bad | 4 (0.8) |
| Bad | 164 (32.8) | |
| Good | 315 (63.0) | |
| Very good | 17 (3.4) | |
Data are presented as number of persons (%).
CFA result
| Category | Mean | Standard deviation | Non-SC | Standard error | Critical ratio | SC | AVE | CR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Importance of reliability | Provide good service | 3.11 | 0.54 | 1.000 | - | - | 0.773 | 0.726 | 0.929 |
| Privacy protect | 2.80 | 0.74 | 1.025 | 0.08 | 12.717 | 0.575 | |||
| Reliable | 3.10 | 0.59 | 1.047 | 0.06 | 17.042 | 0.747 | |||
| Consumer care | 3.02 | 0.59 | 1.043 | 0.06 | 16.928 | 0.743 | |||
| Honesty | 2.94 | 0.64 | 1.120 | 0.07 | 16.764 | 0.737 | |||
| Barriers | Limited information | 2.87 | 0.58 | 1.000 | - | - | 0.636 | 0.625 | 0.832 |
| Bad information | 3.02 | 0.55 | 0.917 | 0.12 | 7.636 | 0.619 | |||
| Inconvenient | 2.74 | 0.59 | 0.826 | 0.11 | 7.395 | 0.523 | |||
| Health consciousness | Health maintenance efforts | 2.68 | 0.72 | 1.000 | - | - | 0.646 | 0.658 | 0.905 |
| Disease prevention | 2.97 | 0.71 | 1.095 | 0.09 | 12.473 | 0.716 | |||
| Self care | 3.35 | 0.58 | 0.860 | 0.07 | 12.175 | 0.691 | |||
| Healthy diet | 3.30 | 0.59 | 0.879 | 0.07 | 12.176 | 0.691 | |||
| Healthy life | 3.57 | 0.55 | 0.610 | 0.06 | 9.626 | 0.514 | |||
| Social norm | My physician | 3.04 | 0.60 | 1.000 | - | - | 0.778 | 0.82 | 0.932 |
| My family | 3.04 | 0.58 | 0.981 | 0.06 | 17.765 | 0.795 | |||
| Important others | 2.92 | 0.58 | 0.959 | 0.06 | 17.106 | 0.767 | |||
| Expectation for the quality of accreditation system | Certainty/ uncertainty | 3.37 | 0.61 | 1.000 | - | - | 0.739 | 0.735 | 0.951 |
| Unbiased information | 3.45 | 0.59 | 0.899 | 0.06 | 14.572 | 0.683 | |||
| Health information updated date | 3.37 | 0.57 | 0.895 | 0.06 | 14.975 | 0.701 | |||
| Clear source | 3.51 | 0.57 | 0.900 | 0.06 | 15.066 | 0.705 | |||
| Easy to understand | 3.46 | 0.57 | 0.799 | 0.06 | 13.289 | 0.624 | |||
| Accurate contents | 3.45 | 0.55 | 0.811 | 0.06 | 14.133 | 0.663 | |||
| Clear goals | 3.29 | 0.54 | 0.843 | 0.06 | 14.943 | 0.700 | |||
| Perceived ease of use | Easy to differentiate | 3.26 | 0.56 | 1.000 | - | - | 0.693 | 0.812 | 0.928 |
| Easy to learn | 3.16 | 0.55 | 1.139 | 0.07 | 15.751 | 0.798 | |||
| Easy to find | 3.10 | 0.55 | 1.082 | 0.07 | 15.229 | 0.766 | |||
| Perceived usefulness | Good to decision making | 3.25 | 0.56 | 1.000 | - | - | 0.750 | 0.763 | 0.928 |
| Save cost | 3.17 | 0.63 | 1.018 | 0.07 | 14.985 | 0.676 | |||
| Save time | 3.18 | 0.61 | 1.048 | 0.07 | 16.168 | 0.725 | |||
| Good to health | 3.21 | 0.48 | 0.817 | 0.05 | 15.887 | 0.713 | |||
| Intention of use | Recommend to others | 3.16 | 0.59 | 1.000 | - | - | 0.751 | 0.791 | 0.919 |
| Revisit to site | 3.23 | 0.54 | 0.903 | 0.06 | 16.353 | 0.748 | |||
| Use if necessary | 3.07 | 0.59 | 0.983 | 0.06 | 16.076 | 0.736 | |||
CFA = confirmatory factor analysis, SC = standardized coefficient, AVE = average variance extracted, CR = construct reliability.
Model's goodness-of-fit
| Model | χ2 | df | Q (χ2/df) | GFI | RMSEA | CFI | TLI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research model | 1,098.83 | 476 | 2.308 | 0.879 | 0.051 | 0.917 | 0.908 |
GFI = goodness-of-fit index, RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index.
Fig. 2Results of research hypotheses based on the SEM.
SEM = structural equation model, GFI = goodness-of-fit index, RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index.
*P < 0.05; †P < 0.01; ‡P < 0.001.