| Literature DB >> 31534315 |
Yun-Hsuan Lin1,2, Jong-Long Guo3, Hsiao-Pei Hsu2, Li-Shu Yang4, Ya-Lin Fu2,4, Chiu-Mieh Huang5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore the association between hospital loyalty, perceived usefulness of a mobile app, perceived ease of use of that mobile app, and satisfaction with the app's use as well as predicting patients' intended use of the app. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Purposive sampling was adopted in a cross-sectional survey. The participants were outpatients at the traditional Chinese medicine departments of three hospitals in northern Taiwan (n=125). The self-report questionnaire comprised information about sociodemographics and scales related to hospital loyalty, perceived usefulness of the mobile app, its perceived ease of use, satisfaction with its use, and its usage intention. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling.Entities:
Keywords: hospital loyalty; mobile application; patient engagement; technology acceptance model; usage intention
Year: 2019 PMID: 31534315 PMCID: PMC6682323 DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S207031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence ISSN: 1177-889X Impact factor: 2.711
Figure 1Research model.
Figure 2Mobile app design – (A) assessment of behavioral and menstrual status; (B) calendar function; (C) data storage (The content of this interface has been translated into English; the original interface is in Chinese.).
Study variables and corresponding items
| Study variables | Item | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Loyalty | ||
| L1 | I think the hospital is very good. | Astuti & Nagase (2014) |
| L2 | I would recommend the hospital to others. | |
| L3 | I would like to use the service again. | |
| Perceived usefulness | ||
| U1 | The application is helpful for me to recall my behavior. | Davis (1989) |
| U2 | The application is helpful for me to recall my medication intake. | |
| U3 | The graph and consolidated table of the application are helpful to me. | |
| U4 | Overall, the application is useful for my self-care. | |
| Perceived ease of use | ||
| E1 | The interface design of the application was clear and understandable. | Davis (1989) |
| E2 | I could easily record my menstrual status and behavior with the application. | |
| E3 | Learning to operate the application would be easy for me. | |
| E4 | Using the application doesn’t take too much time. | |
| Satisfaction | ||
| S1 | I felt satisfied after using application. | Astuti & Nagase (2014) |
| S2 | I like the design of the application. | |
| Usage intention | ||
| I1 | I will use the application in the future. | Davis (1989) |
| I2 | I would recommend the application to my friends with menstrual discomfort symptoms. |
Cronbach’s α, factor loadings, and explained variance of the study variables
| Study variable | Items | Cronbach’s α | Factors | Factor loading | Explained variance (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital loyalty | 3 | 0.88 | 1 | 0.877–0.917 | 80.806 |
| Perceived usefulness | 4 | 0.88 | 1 | 0.849–0.871 | 73.570 |
| Perceived ease of use | 4 | 0.93 | 1 | 0.837–0.953 | 82.761 |
| Satisfaction | 2 | 0.88 | 1 | 0.956 | 91.386 |
| Usage intention | 2 | 0.85 | 1 | 0.933 | 87.059 |
Demographic characteristics
| Variables | N (%) | Mean + SD |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 32.19±7.64 | |
| 20–29 | 16 (12.8) | |
| 30–39 | 90 (72) | |
| 40–49 | 18 (14.4) | |
| ≧50 | 1 (0.8) | |
| Body mass index (BMI) | 21.45±3.51 | |
| <18.5 | 11 (8.8) | |
| 18.5≦ BMI <24 | 86 (68.8) | |
| ≧24 | 28 (22.4) | |
| Educational level | ||
| Senior high school | 5 (4) | |
| College | 23 (18.4) | |
| University | 73 (58.4) | |
| Graduate school | 24 (19.2) | |
| Marital status | ||
| Married | 35 (28) | |
| Single | 90 (72) | |
| Work/school duration | ||
| No | 8 (6.4.9) | |
| No fixed time/Shift | 17 (13.6) | |
| Fixed time | 99 (79.2) | |
| Missing | 1 (0.8) | |
| Obstetric and gynecological diagnoses | ||
| Yes | 73 (58.4) | |
| No | 52 (41.6) | |
| Pregnancy experience | ||
| Yes | 101 (80.8) | |
| No | 24 (19.2) | |
| Experience of childbirth | ||
| Yes | 109 (87.2) | |
| No | 16 (12.8) |
Figure 3Measurement model composed of five latent variables tested through confirmatory factor analysis. All the correlations were statistically significant.
Note: L1–L3= items of hospital loyalty; U1–U4= items of perceived usefulness of the mobile app; E1–E4= items of perceived ease of use of the mobile app; S1–S2= items of Satisfaction with the mobile app use; I1–I2= items of usage intention of the mobile app.
Standardized path coefficients for the full and parsimony models
| Paths | Full model | Parsimony model | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β (95% CI) | Result | β (95% CI) | Result | ||
| H1a | Perceived usefulness→Usage intention | 0.36 (0.15, 0.58) | Support | 0.40 (0.18, 0.62) | Support |
| H1b | Perceived ease of use→sage intention | 0.12 (−0.10, 0.32) | Not support | - | - |
| H1c | Perceived ease of use→Perceived usefulness | 0.63 (0.47, 0.78) | Support | 0.63 (0.47, 0.78) | Support |
| H2a | Satisfaction→Usage intention | 0.43 (0.17, 0.69) | Support | 0.49 (0.27, 0.69) | Support |
| H2b | Perceived usefulness→Satisfaction→Usage intention | 0.49 (0.31, 0.65) | Support | 0.49 (0.32, 0.64) | Support |
| H2c | Perceived ease of use→Satisfaction→Usage intention | 0.40 (0.24, 0.57) | Support | 0.40 (0.24, 0.57) | Support |
| H3a | Hospital loyalty→Usage intention | 0.003 (−0.11, 0.13) | Not support | - | - |
| H3b | Hospital loyalty→Satisfaction→Usage intention | −0.002 (−0.12, 0.12) | Not support | - | - |
| H3c | Hospital loyalty→Perceived usefulness→Usage intention | 0.17 (−0.002, 0.33) | Support | 0.17 (0.03, 0.29) | Support |
| H3d | Hospital loyalty→Perceived ease of use→Usage intention | 0.53 (0.36, 0.66) | Support | 0.53 (0.36, 0.66) | Support |
Abbreviations: β, standardized regression weights; CI, confidence interval; H, hypothesis.
Standardized direct and indirect effects on usage intention of mobile app (parsimony model)
| Variables | Direct effects | Indirect effects | Total effects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital loyalty | - | 0.35(0.17×0.40+0.17×0.49×0.49+0.53×0.63×0.40+0.53×0.40×0.49) | 0.35 |
| Perceived usefulness | 0.40 | 0.24 (0.49×0.49) | 0.64 |
| Perceived ease of use | 0.12 | 0.6 (0.63×0.40+0.63×0.49×0.49+0.40×0.49) | 0.72 |
| Satisfaction | 0.49 | - | 0.49 |
Figure 4Structural equation modeling analysis of the research model (full model). The dotted line represents a nonsignificant relationship. *p<0.05.