| Literature DB >> 33182479 |
Yu-Ping Lee1, Hsin-Yeh Tsai1, Athapol Ruangkanjanases2.
Abstract
Compared to other appointment methods in public hospitals, registering through the Internet or utilizing e-appointments, or registering online as an outpatient, can provide more information to the user. This research investigated the integration of unified theory of the acceptance and use of technology and information system quality in determining factors that influence the adoption of e-appointments by patients, based on the requirements of food safety consultation in Taiwan. Empirical data from 369 valid samples were assessed using Partial Least Squares (PLS). The key findings of this study indicated that patients' acceptance of e-appointments was influenced by users' perceptions (i.e., performance expectancy and facilitating conditions), along with information quality and service quality. The practical and academic implications are provided for future practitioners and scholars, and to enhance patients' usage of e-appointments in their healthcare activities.Entities:
Keywords: e-appointment; information system quality (ISQ); partial least squares (PLS); public medical services; push notifications of food safety; unified theory of the acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT)
Year: 2020 PMID: 33182479 PMCID: PMC7665118 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17218287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Research model.
Sample structure.
| Characteristics | Frequency | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Male | 172 | 46.6% |
| Female | 197 | 53.4% |
|
| ||
| Under 25 | 28 | 7.6% |
| 26–35 | 50 | 13.6% |
| 36–45 | 124 | 33.5% |
| 46–55 | 69 | 18.7% |
| Over 55 | 98 | 26.6% |
|
| ||
| High school certificate or below | 97 | 26.3% |
| Technical school | 68 | 18.4% |
| Undergraduate degree | 166 | 45.0% |
| Master or higher degree | 38 | 10.3% |
|
| ||
| Student | 38 | 10.3% |
| Service | 173 | 46.9% |
| Manufacturing | 77 | 20.8% |
| Others | 81 | 22.0% |
|
| ||
| Under 1 time | 82 | 22.2% |
| 1–3 times | 168 | 45.5% |
| Over 3 times | 119 | 32.3% |
Assessment of the measurement model.
| Construct | Indicator | Mean | Std. Dev. | Factor Loading | CR | AVE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PE | PE1 | 6.382 | 0.791 | 0.842 | 32.968 | 0.914 | 0.780 |
| PE2 | 6.564 | 0.656 | 0.912 | 50.277 | |||
| PE3 | 6.523 | 0.654 | 0.895 | 52.678 | |||
| EE | EE1 | 5.957 | 0.825 | 0.850 | 31.776 | 0.908 | 0.767 |
| EE2 | 5.992 | 0.921 | 0.861 | 34.141 | |||
| EE3 | 5.981 | 0.866 | 0.914 | 88.699 | |||
| SI | SI1 | 5.114 | 1.402 | 0.927 | 41.711 | 0.910 | 0.835 |
| SI2 | 5.425 | 1.301 | 0.900 | 28.772 | |||
| FC | FC1 | 6.222 | 0.789 | 0.874 | 40.193 | 0.900 | 0.751 |
| FC2 | 6.247 | 0.831 | 0.902 | 62.785 | |||
| FC3 | 6.146 | 1.072 | 0.822 | 21.744 | |||
| SYQ | SYQ1 | 6.095 | 0.736 | 0.896 | 56.824 | 0.905 | 0.761 |
| SYQ2 | 5.951 | 0.873 | 0.866 | 35.894 | |||
| SYQ3 | 5.995 | 0.823 | 0.855 | 39.443 | |||
| IQ | IQ1 | 6.230 | 0.683 | 0.778 | 26.785 | 0.925 | 0.712 |
| IQ2 | 6.241 | 0.922 | 0.787 | 23.265 | |||
| IQ3 | 6.103 | 0.859 | 0.858 | 42.817 | |||
| IQ4 | 6.114 | 0.825 | 0.886 | 54.878 | |||
| IQ5 | 6.130 | 0.839 | 0.903 | 72.620 | |||
| SERQ | SERQ1 | 5.738 | 0.682 | 0.749 | 21.136 | 0.924 | 0.753 |
| SERQ2 | 5.994 | 0.928 | 0.872 | 55.672 | |||
| SERQ3 | 5.771 | 0.852 | 0.917 | 65.087 | |||
| SERQ4 | 5.724 | 0.825 | 0.922 | 103.816 | |||
| CI | CI1 | 0.671 | 1.573 | 0.870 | 49.618 | 0.925 | 0.805 |
| CI2 | 0.735 | 4.141 | 0.912 | 54.645 | |||
| CI3 | 0.827 | 2.721 | 0.908 | 82.731 |
Note 1: CR= Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted. Note 2: PE = Performance Expectancy; EE = Effort Expectancy; SI = Social Influence; FC = Facilitating Condition; SYQ = System Quality; IQ = Information Quality; SERQ = Service Quality; Continuance Intention.
Correlation matrix and discriminant validity.
| PE | EE | SI | FC | SYQ | IQ | SERQ | CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PE |
| |||||||
| EE | 0.427 |
| ||||||
| SI | 0.204 | 0.374 |
| |||||
| FC | 0.411 | 0.654 | 0.315 |
| ||||
| SYQ | 0.435 | 0.537 | 0.343 | 0.413 |
| |||
| IQ | 0.528 | 0.631 | 0.306 | 0.518 | 0.687 |
| ||
| SERQ | 0.401 | 0.519 | 0.349 | 0.458 | 0.763 | 0.706 |
| |
| CI | 0.553 | 0.531 | 0.261 | 0.538 | 0.584 | 0.642 | 0.651 |
|
Note 1: Diagonal elements in bold and italics are square roots of the average variance extracted. Note 2: PE = Performance Expectancy; EE = Effort Expectancy; SI = Social Influence; FC = Facilitating Condition; SYQ = System Quality; IQ = Information Quality; SERQ = Service Quality; Continuance Intention.
Standardized factor loadings and cross-loadings for measures.
| PE | EE | SI | FC | SYQ | IQ | SERQ | CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PE1 |
| 0.388 | 0.201 | 0.357 | 0.363 | 0.433 | 0.340 | 0.474 |
| PE2 |
| 0.356 | 0.141 | 0.361 | 0.376 | 0.478 | 0.336 | 0.496 |
| PE3 |
| 0.388 | 0.200 | 0.37 | 0.415 | 0.487 | 0.385 | 0.494 |
| EE1 | 0.363 |
| 0.309 | 0.519 | 0.428 | 0.480 | 0.426 | 0.37 |
| EE2 | 0.378 |
| 0.308 | 0.514 | 0.478 | 0.559 | 0.433 | 0.449 |
| EE3 | 0.382 |
| 0.359 | 0.664 | 0.497 | 0.604 | 0.497 | 0.543 |
| SI1 | 0.155 | 0.328 |
| 0.302 | 0.300 | 0.272 | 0.320 | 0.255 |
| SI2 | 0.222 | 0.357 |
| 0.273 | 0.330 | 0.290 | 0.318 | 0.219 |
| FC1 | 0.387 | 0.586 | 0.290 |
| 0.395 | 0.444 | 0.410 | 0.465 |
| FC2 | 0.404 | 0.577 | 0.293 |
| 0.351 | 0.467 | 0.400 | 0.501 |
| FC3 | 0.268 | 0.536 | 0.232 |
| 0.328 | 0.435 | 0.382 | 0.428 |
| SYQ1 | 0.400 | 0.523 | 0.305 | 0.396 |
| 0.655 | 0.630 | 0.508 |
| SYQ2 | 0.339 | 0.421 | 0.311 | 0.368 |
| 0.549 | 0.618 | 0.473 |
| SYQ3 | 0.397 | 0.458 | 0.283 | 0.321 |
| 0.591 | 0.740 | 0.541 |
| IQ1 | 0.472 | 0.597 | 0.205 | 0.499 | 0.517 |
| 0.483 | 0.521 |
| IQ2 | 0.409 | 0.410 | 0.265 | 0.387 | 0.495 |
| 0.540 | 0.456 |
| IQ3 | 0.442 | 0.580 | 0.284 | 0.427 | 0.603 |
| 0.615 | 0.563 |
| IQ4 | 0.461 | 0.505 | 0.248 | 0.431 | 0.636 |
| 0.639 | 0.575 |
| IQ5 | 0.445 | 0.559 | 0.291 | 0.442 | 0.632 |
| 0.687 | 0.583 |
| SERQ1 | 0.265 | 0.345 | 0.257 | 0.264 | 0.684 | 0.477 |
| 0.439 |
| SERQ2 | 0.393 | 0.509 | 0.308 | 0.397 | 0.722 | 0.665 |
| 0.548 |
| SERQ3 | 0.361 | 0.437 | 0.328 | 0.443 | 0.610 | 0.626 |
| 0.625 |
| SERQ4 | 0.362 | 0.500 | 0.314 | 0.457 | 0.664 | 0.665 |
| 0.623 |
| CI1 | 0.473 | 0.496 | 0.221 | 0.481 | 0.513 | 0.545 | 0.547 |
|
| CI2 | 0.495 | 0.428 | 0.235 | 0.444 | 0.510 | 0.530 | 0.549 |
|
| CI3 | 0.517 | 0.502 | 0.245 | 0.518 | 0.544 | 0.645 | 0.646 |
|
Note 1: The values of bold and italics are standardized loading loadings; the others are cross-loadings. Note: PE = Performance Expectancy; EE = Effort Expectancy; SI = Social Influence; FC = Facilitating Condition; SYQ = System Quality; IQ = Information Quality; SERQ = Service Quality; Continuance Intention.
Hypothesis testing results.
| Hypothesis | Path Direction | Path Coefficient | Result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | PE → CI | 0.242 *** | 4.317 | Supported |
| H2 | EE → CI | 0.035 | 0.660 | Not supported |
| H3 | SI → CI | −0.033 | 0.934 | Not supported |
| H4 | FC → CI | 0.182 * | 2.099 | Supported |
| H5 | SYQ → CI | 0.148 * | 2.341 | Not supported |
| H6 | IQ → CI | 0.048 | 0.777 | Supported |
| H7 | SERQ → CI | 0.323 *** | 5.131 | Supported |
Note 1: PE = Performance Expectancy; EE = Effort Expectancy; SI = Social Influence; FC = Facilitating Condition; SYQ = System Quality; IQ = Information Quality; SERQ = Service Quality; Continuance Intention. Note 2: * p-value < 0.05; ** p-value < 0.01; *** p-value < 0.005.