| Literature DB >> 32250277 |
Xitong Guo1,2, Shuqing Chen2, Xiaofei Zhang3, Xiaofeng Ju2, Xifu Wang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasingly rapid development of Web 2.0 technologies, the application of mobile health (mHealth) care in the field of health management has become popular. Accordingly, patients are able to access consulting services and effective health information online without temporal and geographical constraints. The elaboration-likelihood model (ELM) is a dual-process persuasion theory that describes the change of attitudes and behavior.Entities:
Keywords: elaboration-likelihood model; health behavior; health consciousness; mHealth services; patients’ continuous usage
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32250277 PMCID: PMC7171561 DOI: 10.2196/17258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Figure 1Original model for the elaboration-likelihood model. H1: Hypothesis 1; H2: Hypothesis 2; H3: Hypothesis 3; H4: Hypothesis 4.
Figure 2The conceptual research model based on the elaboration-likelihood model. H1: Hypothesis 1; H2: Hypothesis 2; H3: Hypothesis 3; H4a: Hypothesis 4a; H4b: Hypothesis 4b; H4c: Hypothesis 4c; H5: Hypothesis 5.
The descriptions and definitions of the constructs.
| Construct | Description |
| Perceived mHealth information quality | A patient’s perception of the quality of information provided by the mHealth management apps |
| Perceived mHealth system quality | A patient’s perception of the quality of the system provided by the mHealth management apps |
| Social media influence | The persuasive effects of the information conveyed by social media on a patient’s attitude to the mHealth management apps: this is not a component of the app itself |
| Health consciousness | A patient’s attention to his or her personal health issues or the motivation to protect them |
| Attitude | A patient’s attitude toward the mHealth management apps |
| Continuous usage intention | The willingness of patients to continue to use their health management apps |
Sample of the normal distribution test.
| Item | Sample size | Mina | Maxb | Mean (SD) | Skewness | Kurtosis |
| PIQc1 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.52 (0.917) | -0.759 | 1.723 |
| PIQ2 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.42 (1.123) | -0.589 | 0.457 |
| PIQ3 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.54 (1.086) | -0.777 | 1.203 |
| PIQ4 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.57 (1.154) | -0.958 | 1.335 |
| PIQ5 | 255 | 2 | 7 | 5.13 (1.077) | -0.527 | 0.399 |
| PSQd1 | 255 | 2 | 7 | 5.39 (1.013) | -0.586 | 0.442 |
| PSQ2 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.35 (1.151) | -0.644 | 0.483 |
| PSQ3 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.37 (1.082) | -0.822 | 1.239 |
| PSQ4 | 255 | 2 | 7 | 5.44 (1.138) | -0.697 | 0.396 |
| PSQ5 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.06 (1.247) | -0.402 | 0.071 |
| SMIe1 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 4.80 (1.469) | -0.663 | -0.031 |
| SMI2 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 4.85 (1.466) | -0.533 | -0.125 |
| SMI3 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 4.92 (1.456) | -0.642 | -0.137 |
| SMI4 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 4.93 (1.444) | -0.626 | -0.207 |
| HCf1 | 255 | 2 | 7 | 5.45 (1.244) | -0.953 | 0.612 |
| HC2 | 255 | 3 | 7 | 5.73 (1.170) | -0.671 | -0.432 |
| HC3 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.83 (1.024) | -0.956 | 1.492 |
| HC4 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.00 (1.290) | -0.639 | 0.325 |
| HC5 | 255 | 2 | 7 | 5.79 (1.126) | -1.051 | 0.955 |
| HC6 | 255 | 2 | 7 | 5.92 (1.145) | -0.947 | 0.475 |
| ATg1 | 255 | 2 | 7 | 5.54 (1.071) | -0.612 | 0.244 |
| AT2 | 255 | 2 | 7 | 5.46 (1.064) | -0.683 | 0.552 |
| AT3 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.14 (1.289) | -0.692 | 0.215 |
| AT4 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.35 (1.213) | -0.949 | 1.191 |
| AT5 | 255 | 2 | 7 | 5.56 (1.175) | -0.832 | 0.617 |
| CIUh1 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.87 (1.267) | -1.364 | 1.996 |
| CIU2 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.69 (1.367) | -1.169 | 0.982 |
| CIU3 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.76 (1.307) | -1.433 | 2.269 |
| CIU4 | 255 | 1 | 7 | 5.71 (1.305) | -1.302 | 1.868 |
aMin: minimum.
bMax: maximum.
cPIQ: perceived information quality.
dPSQ: perceived system quality.
eSMI: social media influence.
fHC: health consciousness.
gAT: attitude.
hCIU: continuous usage intention.
Demographics of the respondents.
| Measure and category | Value (N=255), n (%) | |
|
|
| |
|
| <40 | 203 (79.6) |
|
| 40-50 | 45 (17.6) |
|
| 51-60 | 6 (2.4) |
|
| >60 | 1 (0.4) |
|
|
| |
|
| Female | 114 (44.7) |
|
| Male | 141 (55.3) |
|
|
| |
|
| Junior middle school or below | 1 (0.4) |
|
| High school | 4 (1.6) |
|
| Special secondary school | 14 (5.5) |
|
| Junior college | 38 (14.9) |
|
| Bachelor’s degree | 171 (67.1) |
|
| Master’s degree or above | 27 (10.6) |
|
|
| |
|
| Working | 241 (94.5) |
|
| Retired | 14 (5.5) |
The results of confirmatory factor analysis: construct reliability and validity (N=255).
| Indicator (abbreviation) | Cronbach alpha | rho_A | Composite reliability | Average variance extracted |
| Attitude (AT) | .774 | .777 | .855 | .797 |
| Continuous usage intention (CUI) | .881 | .881 | .918 | .737 |
| Health consciousness (HC) | .795 | .701 | .811 | .717 |
| Perceived information quality (PIQ) | .729 | .734 | .830 | .751 |
| Perceived system quality (PSQ) | .718 | .720 | .797 | .767 |
| Social media influence (SMI) | .866 | .868 | .909 | .714 |
Item loadings and cross-loadings for each construct (N=255).
| Construct (abbreviation) and items | Item loadings and cross-loadings | ||||||
|
| AT | CUI | HC | PIQ | PSQ | SMI | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| AT1 | .789 | .471 | .394 | .402 | .290 | .407 |
|
| AT3 | .711 | .387 | .363 | .309 | .347 | .299 |
|
| AT4 | .791 | .453 | .306 | .350 | .386 | .336 |
|
| AT5 | .796 | .427 | .311 | .330 | .333 | .274 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| CUI1 | .460 | .862 | .295 | .334 | .222 | .290 |
|
| CUI2 | .504 | .872 | .285 | .352 | .248 | .198 |
|
| CUI3 | .491 | .860 | .271 | .391 | .220 | .244 |
|
| CUI4 | .481 | .839 | .232 | .350 | .228 | .311 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| HC2 | .298 | .277 | .709 | .223 | .148 | .141 |
|
| HC3 | .255 | .172 | .723 | .159 | .129 | .094 |
|
| HC4 | .398 | .203 | .736 | .194 | .241 | .189 |
|
| HC5 | .299 | .257 | .709 | .206 | .120 | .181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| PIQ1 | .364 | .331 | .253 | .777 | .406 | .200 |
|
| PIQ2 | .335 | .327 | .220 | .716 | .464 | .218 |
|
| PIQ3 | .279 | .237 | .114 | .714 | .442 | .166 |
|
| PIQ4 | .356 | .328 | .205 | .760 | .428 | .223 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| PSQ1 | .302 | .210 | .180 | .437 | .741 | .201 |
|
| PSQ2 | .346 | .257 | .207 | .483 | .771 | .167 |
|
| PSQ5 | .337 | .136 | .137 | .398 | .746 | .286 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| SMI1 | .350 | .263 | .146 | .261 | .275 | .857 |
|
| SMI2 | .342 | .199 | .179 | .107 | .227 | .829 |
|
| SMI3 | .373 | .296 | .185 | .251 | .203 | .825 |
|
| SMI4 | .385 | .263 | .219 | .296 | .273 | .868 |
Correlation matrix (N=255).
| Construct (abbreviation) | Correlation | |||||
|
| AT | CUI | HC | PIQ | PSQ | SMI |
| Attitude (AT) | .772 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Continuous usage intention (CIU) | .564 | .858 |
|
|
|
|
| Health consciousness (HC) | .446 | .315 | .719 |
|
|
|
| Perceived information quality (PIQ) | .453 | .416 | .273 | .742 |
|
|
| Perceived system quality (PSQ) | .438 | .268 | .232 | .584 | .753 |
|
| Social media influence (SMI) | .430 | .303 | .217 | .274 | .290 | .845 |
Figure 3The conceptual research model based on the elaboration-likelihood model and results of the partial least squares analysis. *P<.05; **P<.01; ***P<.001.
Results of the hypotheses testing.
| Indicator (abbreviation) | Model I | Model II | Model III | Hypothesis test | ||||
|
| Path coefficient | Path coefficient | Path coefficient |
| ||||
| Perceived information quality (PIQ) | .250 | .001 | .196 | .003 | .209 | .003 | Hypothesis 1 was supported | |
| Perceived system quality (PSQ) | .205 | .02 | .179 | .03 | .178 | .03 | Hypothesis 2 was supported | |
| Social media influence (SMI) | .302 | <.001 | .261 | <.001 | .254 | <.001 | Hypothesis 3 was supported | |
| Attitude (AT) | .558 | <.001 | .558 | <.001 | .558 | <.001 | Hypothesis 5 was supported | |
| Health consciousness (HC) | N/Aa | N/A | .294 | <.001 | .269 | <.001 | N/A | |
| PIQ × HC | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | .101 | .17 | Hypothesis 4a was not supported | |
| PSQ × HC | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | .044 | .56 | Hypothesis 4b was not supported | |
| SMI × HC | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | .124 | .04 | Hypothesis 4c was reverse supported | |
| Age | .054 | .25 | .055 | .24 | .055 | .25 | N/A | |
| Gender | .028 | .62 | .028 | .60 | .029 | .60 | N/A | |
| Education | -.090 | .28 | .013 | .83 | .013 | .83 | N/A | |
| Work | .013 | .83 | .090 | .28 | .090 | .28 | N/A | |
| R2 | .333 | N/A | .411 | N/A | .434 | N/A | N/A | |
| R2 adjusted | .325 | N/A | .401 | N/A | .418 | N/A | N/A | |
aNot applicable.