| Literature DB >> 32191212 |
Ming-Chin Lin1, Shuo-Chen Chien1, Md Mohaimenul Islam1, Chen-An Yeh2, Po-Han Chien3, Chun You Chen2, Yen-Po Chin1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of patient care through the use of mobile devices is one of the hot topics in the health care field. In unwanted situations like an accident, ambulances and rescuers often require a certain amount of time to arrive at the scene. Providing immediate cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to patients might improve survival.Entities:
Keywords: cardiopulmonary resuscitation; emergency care; mobile app; technology acceptance model
Year: 2020 PMID: 32191212 PMCID: PMC7118550 DOI: 10.2196/15494
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Form Res ISSN: 2561-326X
Figure 1The framework of the technology acceptance model.
Figure 2Proposed research model. H1: perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are significantly positively correlated; H2: perceived usefulness is significantly positively correlated with use willingness and frequency; H3: perceived ease of use is significantly positively correlated with use willingness and frequency; H4: perceived usefulness has a mediating effect on perceived ease of use and use willingness.
Characteristics of the participants (N=113).
| Characteristic | Participants, n (%) | ||
|
|
| ||
|
| Male | 63 (55.8) | |
|
| Female | 50 (44.2) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| 20-39 | 40 (35.4) | |
|
| 40-59 | 40 (35.4) | |
|
| 60 or older | 33 (29.2) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| Junior high school or below | 8 (7.1) | |
|
| Senior high school | 20 (17.7) | |
|
| Bachelor’s degree | 68 (60.2) | |
|
| Master’s degree or above | 17 (15.0) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| Student | 1 (0.9) | |
|
| Military/public/religious industry | 3 (2.7) | |
|
| Service industry | 14 (12.4) | |
|
| Finance industry | 2 (1.8) | |
|
| Information/technology industry | 5 (4.4) | |
|
| Communication/advertising/design industry | 2 (1.8) | |
|
| Art industry | 0 (0.0) | |
|
| Free industry | 9 (8.0) | |
|
| Medical care industry | 28 (24.8) | |
|
| Agriculture/forestry/fishery/animal husbandry industry | 1 (0.9) | |
|
| Family management/retirement industry | 20 (17.7) | |
|
| Others | 28 (24.8) | |
Reliability, mean, and variance analysis.
| Variable and measurement project | Mean (SD) | Cronbach α value after the project is deleted | Cronbach α | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| A1 | 3.49 (1.21) | .86 |
|
|
| A2 | 3.85 (0.95) | .80 |
|
|
| A3 | 3.96 (0.86) | .81 |
|
|
| A4 | 3.90 (0.91) | .82 |
|
|
| A5 | 3.74 (1.02) | .81 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| B1 | 4.11 (0.88) | .92 |
|
|
| B2 | 4.01 (0.98) | .92 |
|
|
| B3 | 4.04 (0.93) | .93 |
|
|
| B4 | 3.91 (1.04) | .94 |
|
|
| B5 | 4.00 (0.98) | .92 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| C1 | 4.02 (0.91) | .91 |
|
|
| C2 | 3.68 (1.01) | .94 |
|
|
| C3 | 4.05 (0.88) | .90 |
|
|
| C4 | 4.05 (0.94) | .91 |
|
|
| C5 | 3.91 (1.01) | .90 |
|
Correlation analysis (Pearson r and two-tailed P) among the research variables.
| Variable | Gender | Age | Highest education | Whether medical staff | Perceived ease of use | Perceived usefulness | Use willingness | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| 1 | −0.042 | 0.150 | 0.273a | −0.177 | −0.004 | −0.079 | |
|
| —b | .66 | .11 | .003 | .06 | .96 | .40 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| −0.042 | 1 | −0.451a | −0.263a | −0.168 | −0.034 | −0.078 | |
|
| .66 | — | <.001 | .005 | .08 | .72 | .41 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| 0.150 | −0.451a | 1 | 0.395a | 0.079 | 0.115 | 0.117 | |
|
| .11 | <.001 | — | <.001 | .41 | .23 | .28 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
| 0.273a | −0.263a | 0.395a | 1 | 0.085 | 0.157 | 0.116 | |
|
| .003 | .005 | <.001 | — | .37 | .10 | .22 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| −0.177 | −0.168 | 0.079 | 0.085 | 1 | 0.752a | 0.764a | |
|
| .06 | .08 | .41 | 0.37 | — | <.001 | <.001 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| −0.004 | −0.034 | 0.115 | 0.157 | 0.752a | 1 | 0.889a | |
|
| .96 | .72 | .23 | .10 | <.001 | — | <.001 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| −0.079 | −0.078 | 0.117 | 0.116 | 0.764a | 0.889a | 1 | |
|
| .40 | .41 | .22 | 0.22 | <.001 | <.001 | — | ||
aThe correlation is significant at a significance level of .01 (two-tailed).
bNot applicable.
Trust interval and discriminant validity of the correlation coefficients.
| Parameter | Estimate | Lower | Upper | |
| Perceived ease of use → Perceived usefulness | 0.72 | 0.52 | 0.84 | .001 |
| Perceived usefulness → Use willingness | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.97 | .001 |
| Perceived ease of use → Use willingness | 0.20 | −0.03 | 0.43 | .05 |
Figure 3Standardized structural equations and hypothesis testing. GFI: goodness-of-fit index; AGFI: adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NFI: normed fit index; CFI: comparative fit index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation.
Figure 4Modified normalized structural equation. GFI: goodness-of-fit index; AGFI: adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NFI: normed fit index; CFI: comparative fit index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation.
Standardized coefficients and significance of direct relationships.
| Parameter | Estimate | Lower | Upper | |
| Perceived ease of use → Perceived usefulness | 0.87 | 0.63 | 1.11 | .001 |
| Perceived ease of use → Use willingness | 0.33 | 0.09 | 0.61 | .001 |
| Perceived usefulness → Use willingness | 0.68 | 0.43 | 0.97 | .001 |