| Literature DB >> 31637229 |
Zepeng Gong1,2, Ziqiang Han3, Xudan Li1,2, Chao Yu4, Jan D Reinhardt1,5,6.
Abstract
The cyberspace plays an important role in improving the quality, equity, and efficiency of health services. Studying people's adoption of online health services, such as online health consultation services (OHCS) can benefit both industry and policy in the health service sector. This paper investigates influencing factors and paths of people's intention of adopting OHCS by employing the extended valence framework, with our new contribution of integrating subjective norm and offline habit into the model. Five hundred forty-three university students participated in the survey. Structural equation models and Sobel-Goodman tests were applied to test the models. The results show that subjective norm (β = 0.077, p = 0.041), trust in providers (β = 0.194, p = 0.002) and perceived benefit (β = 0.463, p < 0.001) positively affect the intention to adopt OHCS, while offline habit (β = -0.111, p = 0.026) has a negative effect. However, the association of perceived risk (β = -0.062, p = 0.315) and adoption is not supported. Moreover, trust in providers plays a mediating role between subjective norm and the intention of adopting, while perceived benefit mediates the relationship between trust in providers and the intention of adopting. This study highlights the importance of trust, subjective norm, perceived benefit, and persisting habits in promoting the adoption of OHCS.Entities:
Keywords: adoption; extended valence framework; habit; online health consultation service; subjective norm
Year: 2019 PMID: 31637229 PMCID: PMC6787145 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00286
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Extended valence framework.
Figure 2Research model.
Measurement items, factor loading, and characteristics of variables.
| Subjective norm | SN1: People who influence my behavior (would think/think) that I should use the OHCS. | 0.875 | 8.39 (2.42) | 3–15 |
| SN2: People who are important to me (would think/think) that I should use the OHCS. | 0.896 | |||
| SN3: People who are in my social circle (would think/think) that I should use the OHCS. | 0.880 | |||
| Trust in providers | TP1: I would characterize OHCS providers as honest. | 0.670 | 22.24 (3.98) | 7–35 |
| TP2: I believe that the health service provided by OHCS platform is useful. | 0.600 | |||
| TP3: The OHCS platform performs its role as health service providers very well. | 0.597 | |||
| TP4: I have confidence in relying on OHCS platforms to complete a health consultation or diagnosis. | 0.681 | |||
| TP5: Doctors on the OHCS platform have medical qualifications. | 0.794 | |||
| TP6: The consultation or diagnosis provided by doctors on OHCS platforms is reliable | 0.769 | |||
| TP7: In my opinion, doctors on the OHCS platform are trustworthy. | 0.806 | |||
| Perceived risk | PR1: Providing personal health information online is unsafe. | 0.576 | 18.36 (3.14) | 5–25 |
| PR2: I think it is risky to provide personal information to OHCS providers. | 0.808 | |||
| PR3: I think it is risky to provide personal health information to doctors on OHCS platforms. | 0.797 | |||
| PR4: I would hesitate to provide my personal information (such as name, address, health condition, bank information, and phone number, etc.) to OHCS platforms. | 0.719 | |||
| PR5: I think it is risky to make a decision (such as taking medicine, controlling diet, etc.) based on the diagnosis provided by the doctors on the OHCS platform. | 0.631 | |||
| Perceived benefit | PB1: Using OHCS can be of benefit to me in managing my health. | 0.793 | 21.35 3.76) | 6–30 |
| PB2: Using OHCS can increase my knowledge of my personal health conditions. | 0.804 | |||
| PB3: Using OHCS can help to relieve stresses about my symptoms or my worries about symptoms. | 0.691 | |||
| PB4: Using OHCS will be useful for my health. | 0.766 | |||
| PB5: Compared with going to the hospital, using OHCS can save time. | 0.706 | |||
| PB6: Compared with going to the hospital, using OHCS can save medical expenses. | 0.666 | |||
| Offline habit | OH1: Whenever I need to see a doctor or have a health consultation, I will choose to go to hospitals or clinics without even being aware of making another choice. | 0.737 | 15.77 (2.50) | 4–20 |
| OH2: Whenever I need to see a doctor or have a health consultation, I unconsciously start going to hospitals or clinics. | 0.879 | |||
| OH3: Choosing to go to hospitals or clinics when I need to see a doctor or have a health consultation is something I do unconsciously. | 0.844 | |||
| OH4: In general, I am accustomed to taking the offline channel (going to hospitals or clinics) for medical treatment or health consultation. | 0.828 | |||
| Adoption of OHCS | AO1: I intend to use OHCS to consult health issues when needed in the future. | 0.811 | 10.27 (2.01) | 3–15 |
| AO2: I predict that I will use OHCS to consult health issues when needed in the future. | 0.862 | |||
| AO3: I plan to use OHCS to consult health issues when needed in the future. | 0.845 |
FL, factor loading; SD, standard deviation.
Characteristic of respondents.
| Gender | Female | 349 | 64.27 |
| Male | 194 | 35.73 | |
| Being a graduate student | No | 298 | 54.88 |
| Yes | 245 | 45.12 | |
| Major | Medicine | 168 | 30.94 |
| Else | 375 | 69.06 | |
| Experience of obtaining health information online | No | 189 | 34.81 |
| Yes | 354 | 65.19 | |
| Expense | <1,000 | 100 | 18.42 |
| 1,000–2,000 | 361 | 66.48 | |
| 2,001–3,000 | 55 | 10.13 | |
| More than 3,000 | 27 | 4.97 | |
| Health condition (Frequency of seeing a doctor) | Never | 18 | 3.31 |
| Rarely | 205 | 37.75 | |
| Sometimes | 224 | 41.25 | |
| Usually | 96 | 17.68 | |
Validity and reliability of variables.
| SN | 0.914 | 0.915 | 0.781 | ||||||
| TP | 0.907 | 0.874 | 0.500 | 0.467 | |||||
| PR | 0.788 | 0.835 | 0.507 | −0.190 | −0.318 | ||||
| PB | 0.887 | 0.878 | 0.547 | 0.326 | 0.620 | −0.170 | |||
| OH | 0.847 | 0.894 | 0.678 | −0.149 | −0.073 | 0.314 | 0.024 | ||
| AO | 0.886 | 0.878 | 0.705 | 0.331 | 0.500 | −0.207 | 0.501 | −0.131 |
CA, Cronbach's alpha; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted. The bold diagonally are the square root of AVE.
Path coefficients and the result of hypotheses test.
| H1: PR→AO | −0.062 | Not supported | |
| H2: PB→AO | 0.463 | Supported | |
| H3: TP→AO | 0.194 | Supported | |
| H4: TP→PR | −0.260 | Supported | |
| H5: TP→PB | 0.493 | Supported | |
| H6: SN→AO | 0.077 | Supported | |
| H7: SN→TP | 0.420 | Supported | |
| H8: SN→PB | 0.017 | Not supported | |
| H9: SN→PR | −0.019 | Not supported | |
| H10: OH→AO | −0.111 | Supported |
Figure 3The structural model and R2 values. dashed lines represent unsupported paths. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Mediation result.
| Mediation of TP | Direct effect | |||
| SN | 0.107 | 0.035 | ||
| TP | 0.221 | 0.021 | ||
| Indirect effect | 7.961 (61.6%) | |||
| SN on AO through TP | 0.172 | 0.022 | ||
| Mediation of PB | Direct effect | |||
| TP | 0.159 | 0.023 | ||
| PB | 0.159 | 0.025 | ||
| Indirect effect | 6.078 (36.9%) | |||
| TP on AO through PB | 0.093 | 0.015 |
Gender, major, being a graduate student, experience of obtaining health information online, monthly expense and health condition were included in the analysis but not reported in this table.
p < 0.01,
p < 0.001.