| Literature DB >> 29490892 |
Tailai Wu1, Zhaohua Deng1, Zhanchun Feng1, Darrell J Gaskin2, Donglan Zhang3, Ruoxi Wang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both doctors and consumers have engaged in using social media for health purposes. Social media has changed traditional one-to-one communication between doctors and patients to many-to-many communication between doctors and consumers. However, little is known about the effect of doctor-consumer interaction on consumers' health behaviors.Entities:
Keywords: health behavior; medical informatics; physician patient relationships; psychological theory; social media; social theory
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29490892 PMCID: PMC5852273 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.9003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Research model.
Demographic information.
| Characteristics | n (%) | |
| <25 | 122 (34.7) | |
| 25-30 | 150 (42.6) | |
| >30 | 80 (22.7) | |
| Male | 153 (43.5) | |
| Female | 199 (56.5) | |
| High school | 35 (9.9) | |
| College | 304 (86.4) | |
| Master’s degree and above | 13 (3.7) | |
| <1 hour/day | 164 (46.6) | |
| 1-3 hours/day | 128 (36.4) | |
| >3 hours/day | 60 (17) | |
| <1 year | 29 (8.2) | |
| 1-5 years | 201 (57.1) | |
| More than 5 years | 122 (34.7) | |
Construct reliability and convergent validity.
| Construct and items | Factor loadings | Composite reliability | Average variance extracted | Cronbach alpha | |
| INI1 | 0.8021 | 0.8125 | 0.5912 | .6547 | |
| INI2 | 0.7388 | ||||
| INI3 | 0.7644 | ||||
| AI1 | 0.7639 | 0.8051 | 0.5793 | .6369 | |
| AI2 | 0.7704 | ||||
| AI3 | 0.7489 | ||||
| DK1 | 0.7566 | 0.8564 | 0.5444 | .7912 | |
| DK2 | 0.769 | ||||
| DK3 | 0.7582 | ||||
| DK4 | 0.7022 | ||||
| DK5 | 0.7002 | ||||
| SE1 | 0.7798 | 0.8876 | 0.6124 | .8419 | |
| SE2 | 0.7624 | ||||
| SE3 | 0.7873 | ||||
| SE4 | 0.7869 | ||||
| SE5 | 0.796 | ||||
| OE1 | 0.7635 | 0.8342 | 0.6239 | .6983 | |
| OE2 | 0.8345 | ||||
| OE3 | 0.7697 | ||||
| HB1 | 0.8094 | 0.9021 | 0.5688 | .8737 | |
| HB2 | 0.7335 | ||||
| HB3 | 0.7244 | ||||
| HB4 | 0.7611 | ||||
| HB5 | 0.731 | ||||
| HB6 | 0.7916 | ||||
| HB7 | 0.7232 | ||||
Discriminant validity. The square roots of average variance extracted (AVEs) are in italics.
| Constructs | Instrumental interaction | Affective interaction | Declarative knowledge | Self-efficacy | Outcome expectancy | Health behaviors |
| Instrumental interaction | ||||||
| Affective interaction | 0.558 | |||||
| Declarative knowledge | 0.4757 | 0.4346 | ||||
| Self-efficacy | 0.4204 | 0.4217 | 0.2574 | |||
| Outcome expectancy | 0.5193 | 0.4653 | 0.5408 | 0.3536 | ||
| Health behaviors | 0.4463 | 0.403 | 0.3924 | 0.39 | 0.3597 |
Figure 2Analysis results of structural model.
Mediation analysis using bootstrapping method.
| Independent variable | Mediating variable | Dependent variable | Indirect effect | Direct effect | Mediation proportion | ||||
| 2.5% CI | 97.5% CI | Effect value | 2.5% CI | 97.5% CI | Effect value | ||||
| INIa | DKb | HBc | 0.0275 | 0.1311 | 0.0793 | 0.0744 | 0.3096 | 0.1920 | Partial mediation |
| INI | SEd | HB | 0.0186 | 0.1084 | 0.0635 | 0.0744 | 0.3096 | 0.1920 | Partial mediation |
| INI | OEe | HB | 0.0159 | 0.1198 | 0.0679 | 0.0744 | 0.3096 | 0.1920 | Partial mediation |
| AIf | DK | HB | 0.0180 | 0.0972 | 0.0576 | −0.0050 | 0.2437 | 0.1220 | Full mediation |
| AI | SE | HB | 0.0181 | 0.1103 | 0.0642 | −0.0050 | 0.2437 | 0.1220 | Full mediation |
| AI | OE | HB | 0.0057 | 0.0861 | 0.0459 | −0.0050 | 0.2437 | 0.1220 | Full mediation |
aINI: instrumental interaction.
bDK: declarative knowledge.
cHB: health behaviors.
dSE: self-efficacy.
eOE: outcome expectancy.
fAI: affective interaction.