| Literature DB >> 32344770 |
Ammar Yasir1, Xiaojian Hu1, Munir Ahmad2, Abdul Rauf3, Jingwen Shi4, Saba Ali Nasir5.
Abstract
Although social presence plays an essential role under general conditions, its role becomes significant for societal protection during the quarantine period in epidemic outbreak. In this study, we attempted to identify the role of E-government and COVID-19 word of mouth in terms of their direct impact on online social presence during the outbreak as well as their impacts mediated by epidemic protection and attitudes toward epidemic outbreaks. For this purpose, a unique multi-mediation model is proposed to provide a new direction for research in the field of epidemic outbreaks and their control. Through random sampling, an online survey was conducted and data from 683participants were analyzed. Partial least squares structural equation modeling was used to test the relationships between the variables of interest. The study results revealed that the roles of E-government and COVID-19 word of mouth are positively related to online social presence during the outbreak. Epidemic protection and attitude toward epidemic outbreak were found to positively moderate the impact of the role of E-government and COVID-19 word of mouth on online social presence during the outbreak. The key findings of this study have both practical and academic implications.Entities:
Keywords: 2019-nCoV-WOM; epidemic outbreak; epidemic protection; quarantine; role of E-government; social presence theory
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32344770 PMCID: PMC7216275 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17082954
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Figure 2Multi-mediation model.
Demographics of study participants.
| Classification | Frequency ( | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 315 | 46.12% |
| Marital status | Married | 309 | 45.24% |
| Age | Under 18 | 27 | 3.95% |
Scale development.
| Construct | Items and Sources |
|---|---|
| Role of E-Govt | Efforts of E-Govt, trust in E-Govt, support of E-Govt [ |
| 2019-nCoV-WOM | Information,countries’ status, 2019-nCoV- plan [ |
| Epidemic protection | Hand wash, mask, motivation to protect [ |
| Attitude toward epidemic outbreak | Willingness to quarantine, health psychology, doctors’ advice [ |
| Online Social presence in outbreak | More present in quarantine, present for social support, present to discuss COVID-19 |
Figure 3Steps in methodology.
Reliability and validity of measurement scales.
| Construct | Item | Outer Loading | Mean | SD | α | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Role of E-Govt | E-Govt 1 | 0.921 | 5.045 | 1.376 | 0.8 | 0.883 | 0.717 |
| E-Govt 2 | 0.935 | 5.104 | 1.155 | ||||
| E-Govt 3 | 0.932 | 5.125 | 1.144 | ||||
| 2019-nCoV-WOM | CONV-1 | 0.749 | 5.557 | 0.853 | 0.921 | 0.95 | 0.864 |
| CONV-2 | 0.895 | 5.509 | 0.994 | ||||
| CONV-3 | 0.89 | 5.402 | 0.947 | ||||
| Epidemic protection | E-P 1 | 0.901 | 5.255 | 1.026 | 0.847 | 0.908 | 0.767 |
| E-P 2 | 0.913 | 5.321 | 1.077 | ||||
| E-P 3 | 0.809 | 5.227 | 0.807 | ||||
| Attitude toward epidemic outbreak | ATOB 1 | 0.844 | 5.427 | 0.924 | 0.806 | 0.886 | 0.721 |
| ATOB 2 | 0.846 | 5.364 | 0.856 | ||||
| ATOB 3 | 0.857 | 5.469 | 1.058 | ||||
| Online social presence in Outbreak | S-P 1 | 0.877 | 5.254 | 0.902 | 0.817 | 0.891 | 0.732 |
| S-P2 | 0.855 | 5.38 | 0.98 | ||||
| S-P 3 | 0.835 | 5.305 | 0.818 |
Note: E-Govt, role of E-government; CONV, COVID-19 word of mouth; E-P, Epidemic protection; S-P, online social presence during outbreak.SD, α, CR, and AVE are standard deviation, Cronbach’s α, composite reliability, and average variance extracted, respectively.
Discriminant validity.
| ATOB | 2019-nCoV-WOM | E-Govt | S-p | E-P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATOB |
| ||||
| 2019-nCoV-WOM | 0.701 |
| |||
| E-Govt | 0.640 | 0.637 |
| ||
| S-P | 0.710 | 0.753 | 0.636 |
| |
| E-P | 0.727 | 0.737 | 0.631 | 0.711 |
|
Note: Values in bold indicate square root of average variance extracted (AVE), which must be higher than the values in the column to confirm validity.
Figure 4Structured model and direct effects.
Structured model.
| Relationship | Direct Effect | t-Value | Decision | F2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1a | E-Govt→ E-P | 0.272 | 8.075 | Supported | 0.107 |
| H1b | E-Govt→ S-p | 0.137 | 3.317 | Supported | 0.028 |
| H1c | E-Govt→ ATOB | 0.326 | 8.68 | Supported | 0.142 |
| H2a | conv19-WOM→E-P | 0.563 | 16.353 | Supported | 0.456 |
| H2b | conv19-WOM→S-P | 0.368 | 8.34 | Supported | 0.149 |
| H2c | conv19-WOM→ATOB | 0.493 | 12.674 | Supported | 0.323 |
| H3a | E-P→S-P | 0.187 | 4.359 | Supported | 0.037 |
| H3b | ATOB→S-P | 0.228 | 5.835 | Supported | 0.059 |
Effect size and predictive relevance.
| Endogenous Variables | Q2 |
| Exogenous Variables | Effect Size f2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E-P | 0.425 | 0.587 | E-Govt | 0.107 |
| ATOB | 0.378 | 0.554 | E-Govt | 0.142 |
| S-P | 0.456 | 0.659 | E-Govt | 0.028 |
Note: E-P, S-P, and ATOB are dependent variables; E-Govt and 2019-nCoV-WOM are independent variables.
Mediation analysis.
| Mediation Path | Specific Indirect Effect | T-value | Total Effect | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.051 | 3.951 | 0.000 | 0.125*** (7.320) | |
|
| 0.074 | 5.189 | 0.000 | ||
|
| 0.106 | 4.093 | 0.000 | 0.218*** (7.224) | |
|
| 0.113 | 5.262 | 0.000 |
Note: E-P and ATOB are mediating variables; E-Govt and 2019-nCoV-WOM are independent variables. S-P is dependent variables for this table. *** indicates strong mediation.
Figure 5Magnitude of mediation of H4b and H5b.
Figure 6Magnitude of mediation of H3c and H4c
Figure 7Impact performance map analysis (IPMA).