| Literature DB >> 30884754 |
Yuan Tang1,2, Yu-Tao Yang3, Yun-Fei Shao4.
Abstract
As a new type of public health service product, online medical websites (OMWs) are becoming quite popular. OMWs can address patients' basic medical problems remotely and give health guidance online. Compared to traditional hospitals, OMWs are more convenient and inexpensive, they can usually provide a better service for patients with poor medical conditions (especially in rural areas), and they also contribute to the rational distribution of medical resources. Therefore, key factors that affect patients' acceptance of OMWs must be identified to contribute to public health. By integrating perceived risk (PR) and the technology acceptance model (TAM), we proposed a modified TAM and clarified how PR and other factors affect patients' behavioral intention (BI) towards OMWs. A sample of 245 research participants in China took part in this study and the structural equation model (SEM) was used to test our hypotheses. The results revealed that perceived usefulness (PU) is a positive predictor of BI but has no significant effect on attitude (ATT), while perceived ease of use (PEOU) can affect BI through PU and attitude (ATT). Moreover, trust (TRU) was identified as a mediator of PR and PU/PEOU. Also, the doctor⁻patient relationship (DPR) was shown to moderate PR and TRU. In order to increase patients' BI, OMW providers need further innovations to improve patients' TRU and reduce their PR.Entities:
Keywords: doctor–patient relationship; online medical websites; public health; technology acceptance model
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30884754 PMCID: PMC6466387 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16060943
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Research Model. (“H” in the model diagram refers to the research “hypothesis”).
Demographic characteristics.
| Item | Category | Number | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 99 | 40.41% |
| Female | 146 | 59.59% | |
| Age | ≤20 years old | 42 | 17.14% |
| 21–40 years old | 172 | 70.20% | |
| >40 years old | 31 | 12.65% | |
| Education background | Less than Bachelor’s degree | 52 | 21.22% |
| Bachelor’s degree | 168 | 68.57% | |
| Master’s or Doctoral degree | 25 | 10.21% |
Factor Loading, C.A., AVE, and CR.
| Construct | Item Code | Factor Loading | C.A. | AVE | CR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Doctor–Patient Relationship (DPR) | DPR1 | 0.734 | 0.85 | 0.61 | 0.89 |
| DPR2 | 0.812 | ||||
| DPR3 | 0.779 | ||||
| DPR4 | 0.782 | ||||
| DPR5 | 0.792 | ||||
| Trust (TRU) | TRU1 | 0.874 | 0.87 | 0.73 | 0.89 |
| TRU2 | 0.824 | ||||
| TRU3 | 0.859 | ||||
| Perceived Risk (PR) | PPriR | 0.758 | 0.89 | 0.68 | 0.87 |
| PFR | 0.863 | ||||
| PPhyR | 0.851 | ||||
| Perceived Usefulness (PU) | PU1 | 0.722 | 0.85 | 0.56 | 0.84 |
| PU2 | 0.702 | ||||
| PU3 | 0.773 | ||||
| PU4 | 0.803 | ||||
| Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) | PEOU1 | 0.647 | 0.80 | 0.58 | 0.85 |
| PEOU2 | 0.852 | ||||
| PEOU3 | 0.857 | ||||
| PEOU4 | 0.671 | ||||
| Attitude (ATT) | ATT1 | 0.781 | 0.85 | 0.53 | 0.77 |
| ATT2 | 0.661 | ||||
| ATT3 | 0.735 | ||||
| Behavioral Intention (BI) | BI1 | 0.712 | 0.78 | 0.53 | 0.77 |
| BI2 | 0.595 | ||||
| BI3 | 0.851 | ||||
| The Whole Questionnaire | 0.86 |
Note. C.A. = Cronbach’s alpha; AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the constructs.
| Construct | Mean | SD | DPR | TRU | PR | PU | PEOU | ATT | BI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPR | 4.935 | 1.162 |
| ||||||
| TRU | 4.246 | 1.336 | 0.548 *** |
| |||||
| PR | 4.793 | 1.141 | −0.241 *** | −0.404 ** |
| ||||
| PU | 4.746 | 1.228 | 0.395 *** | 0.611 ** | −0.199 ** |
| |||
| PEOU | 4.664 | 1.184 | 0.412 *** | 0.589 ** | −0.165 ** | 0.670 ** |
| ||
| ATT | 4.592 | 1.325 | 0.352 *** | 0.601 ** | −0.277 ** | 0.668 ** | 0.648 ** |
| |
| BI | 4.510 | 1.192 | 0.060 | 0.293 *** | −0.121 * | 0.450 *** | 0.316 *** | 0.507 *** |
|
Note. DPR = doctor–patient relationship; TRU = trust; PR = perceived risk; PU = perceived usefulness; PEOU = perceived ease of use; ATT = attitude; BI = behavioral intention; AVE = average variance extracted; SD = standard deviation; ** p < 0.01.
Recommended and actual values of fit indices.
| Fit Indices | CMIN/DF | GFI | AGFI | PGFI | CFI | NFI | PNFI | IFI | TLI (NNFI) | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommended Value | <3 | >0.90 | >0.80 | >0.50 | >0.90 | >0.90 | >0.50 | >0.90 | >0.90 | <0.08 |
| Actual Value | 1.742 | 0.904 | 0.869 | 0.663 | 0.958 | 0.908 | 0.736 | 0.959 | 0.948 | 0.055 |
Note. CMIN/DF = ratio between chi-squared and degrees of freedom; GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; PGFI = parsimony goodness of fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index; PNFI = parsimony normed fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI (NNFI) = Tucker–Lewis index (non-normed fit index); RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
Figure 2Path analysis (note. * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01).
Model path analysis.
| The Hypothesis | Path Coefficient | S.E. | Support |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Attitude → Behavioral intention | 0.391 *** | 0.093 | Yes |
| H2a: Perceived usefulness → Attitude | n.s. | 0.163 | No |
| H2b: Perceived usefulness → Behavioral intention | 0.491 *** | 0.082 | Yes |
| H3a: Perceived ease of use → Perceived usefulness | 0.940 *** | 0.172 | Yes |
| H3b: Perceived ease of use → Attitude | 0.847 *** | 0.227 | Yes |
| H4a: Trust → Perceived usefulness | n.s. | 0.100 | No |
| H4b: Trust → Perceived ease of use | 0.798 *** | 0.060 | Yes |
| H5: Perceived risk → Trust | −0.552 *** | 0.114 | Yes |
Note: S.E. = standard error; n.s. = not significant; * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.
Results of the regression analysis.
| Variables | TRU | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
| Sex | −0.021 | −0.004 | 0.039 | 0.038 |
| Age | 0.116 * | 0.082 | 0.025 | 0.032 |
| Education Background | −0.169 *** | −0.104 * | −0.055 | −0.056 |
| PR | −0.378 *** | −0.280 *** | −0.324 *** | |
| DPR | 0.473 *** | 0.474 *** | ||
| PR × DPR | 0.097 * | |||
| R square | 0.043 | 0.181 | 0.385 | 0.392 |
| △R2 | 0.031 | 0.167 | 0.372 | 0.377 |
| F change for △R2 | 40.264 *** | 79.302 *** | 2.826 *** | |
Note. TRU = trust; PR = perceived risk; DPR = doctor–patient relationship; △R2 = Adjusted R square; *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.1.
Figure 3Interactive effects of PR and DPR on TRU.