| Literature DB >> 34559840 |
Khondker Mohammad Zobair1, Louis Sanzogni1, Luke Houghton2, Md Zahidul Islam3.
Abstract
Many individuals visit rural telemedicine centres to obtain safe and effective health remedies for their physical and emotional illnesses. This study investigates the antecedents of patients' satisfaction relating to telemedicine adoption in rural public hospitals settings in Bangladesh through the adaptation of Expectation Disconfirmation Theory extended by Social Cognitive Theory. This research advances a theoretically sustained prediction model forecasting patients' satisfaction with telemedicine to enable informed decision making. A research model explores four potential antecedents: expectations, performance, disconfirmation, and enjoyment; that significantly contribute to predicting patients' satisfaction concerning telemedicine adoption in Bangladesh. This model is validated using two-staged structural equation modeling and artificial neural network approaches. The findings demonstrate the determinants of patients' satisfaction with telemedicine. The presented model will assist medical practitioners, academics, and information systems practitioners to develop high-quality decisions in the future application of telemedicine. Pertinent implications, limitations and future research directions are endorsed securing long-term telemedicine sustainability.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34559840 PMCID: PMC8462681 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257300
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Research model.
Demographic characteristics of the sample.
| Measure | Items | Frequency | Percentage(%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 206 | 41.9 |
| Female | 286 | 58.1 | |
| Age | ≥ 18 and ≤ 20 | 64 | 13.0 |
| ≥ 21 and ≤ 30 | 158 | 32.1 | |
| ≥ 31 and ≤ 40 | 106 | 21.5 | |
| ≥ 41 and ≤ 50 | 88 | 17.9 | |
| ≥ 51 | 76 | 15.4 | |
| Education | Illiterate | 68 | 13.8 |
| Primary | 104 | 21.0 | |
| Secondary | 178 | 36.2 | |
| Higher secondary | 64 | 13.0 | |
| Bachelor | 51 | 10.4 | |
| Masters and above | 27 | 5.5 |
Source: Zobair et al. [10].
Measurement model assessment.
| Latent Constructs | Indicators | Stand. Loading | AVE | Comp. Reliability | Cronbach’s Alpha | R2 | AdjustedR2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expectations | EXP1 | 0.820 | 0.691 | 0.870 | 0.777 | 0.437 | 0.436 |
| EXP2 | 0.830 | ||||||
| EXP3 | 0.845 | ||||||
| Performance | PERF1 | 0.830 | 0.628 | 0.834 | 0.705 | 0.281 | 0.279 |
| PERF2 | 0.815 | ||||||
| PERF3 | 0.728 | ||||||
| Disconfirmation | DISC1 | 0.805 | 0.554 | 0.832 | 0.732 | 0.518 | 0.516 |
| DISC2 | 0.783 | ||||||
| DISC3 | 0.701 | ||||||
| DISC4 | 0.680 | ||||||
| Enjoyment | ENJ1 | 0.796 | 0.604 | 0.821 | 0.673 | ||
| ENJ2 | 0.750 | ||||||
| ENJ3 | 0.785 | ||||||
| Satisfaction | SAT1 | 0.725 | 0.577 | 0.845 | 0.755 | 0.535 | 0.531 |
| SAT2 | 0.748 | ||||||
| SAT3 | 0.792 | ||||||
| SAT4 | 0.772 |
Note. EXP = expectations; PERF = performance; ENJ = enjoyment; DISC = disconfirmation; SAT = satisfaction; Stand. = Standardised; Comp. = Composite.
Fornell-larcker criterion for discriminant validity coefficients.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| DISC |
| ||||
| ENJ | 0.659 |
| |||
| EXP | 0.680 | 0.661 |
| ||
| PERF | 0.560 | 0.577 | 0.530 |
| |
| SAT | 0.620 | 0.610 | 0.669 | 0.541 | 0.759 |
Note. The square root of AVE in bold. EXP = expectations; PERF = performance; ENJ = enjoyment; DISC = disconfirmation; SAT = satisfaction
Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) for discriminant validity coefficients.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| DISC | |||||
| ENJ | 0.925 | ||||
| EXP | 0.883 | 0.910 | |||
| PERF | 0.770 | 0.829 | 0.708 | ||
| SAT | 0.820 | 0.851 | 0.872 | 0.724 |
Note. EXP = expectations; PERF = performance; ENJ = enjoyment; DISC = disconfirmation; SAT = satisfaction
Fig 2Final PLS-SEM structural model forecasting satisfaction with telemedicine.
Structural model assessment.
| Hypotheses | Path Coefficient ( | SE |
|
|
| Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | EXP→SAT | 0.350 | 0.058 | 6.089 | 0.000 | 0.118 | Supported |
| H2 | EXP→DISC | 0.533 | 0.045 | 11.756 | 0.000 | 0.423 | Supported |
| H3 | EXP→PERF | 0.530 | 0.038 | 14.086 | 0.000 | 0.390 | Supported |
| H4 | PERF→SAT | 0.155 | 0.055 | 2.833 | 0.005 | 0.031 | Supported |
| H5 | PERF→DISC | 0.278 | 0.045 | 6.201 | 0.000 | 0.115 | Supported |
| H6 | DISC→SAT | 0.184 | 0.049 | 3.773 | 0.000 | 0.032 | Supported |
| H7 | ENJ→SAT | 0.168 | 0.055 | 3.030 | 0.002 | 0.027 | Supported |
| H8 | ENJ→EXP | 0.661 | 0.031 | 21.016 | 0.000 | 0.777 | Supported |
Note.
*p < 0.10;
** p < 0.05;
*** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) confidence intervals for significance testing.
EXP = expectations; PERF = performance; ENJ = enjoyment; DISC = disconfirmation; SAT = satisfaction.
Overall saturated model fit evaluation.
| Discrepancy | Value | HI95 | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRMR | 0.071 | 0.055 | Supported |
|
| 0.767 | 0.465 | Supported |
|
| 0.273 | 0.220 | Supported |
Fig 3Deep Neural Network model forecasting satisfaction with telemedicine.
W represents the parameter matrix consisting of weights from layer i to layer j. The dimension of each weight matrix is give in ().
Hyperparameter search results summary (Run 1).
Top 5 Models out of 250 candidate models from Run 1.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | |
| Number of neurons | 1 | 19 | 1 | 18 | 1 | 13 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 10 |
| Activation | PReLU | PReLU | PReLU | tanh | tanh | |||||
| RMSE | 0.12244 | 0.12550 | 0.12793 | 0.12827 | 0.12829 | |||||
Note. HL = Hidden Layer; N = Number of neurons.
Hyperparameter search results summary (Run 8).
Top 5 Models out of 250 candidate models from Run 8.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | |
| Number of neurons | 1 | 14 | 1 | 18 | 1 | 16 | 1 | 14 | 1 | 19 |
| 2 | 13 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 18 | 2 | 15 | |
| 3 | 12 | 3 | 18 | 3 | 16 | 3 | 11 | 3 | 17 | |
| 4 | 18 | 4 | 10 | 4 | 15 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 11 | |
| 5 | 19 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 16 | |
| 6 | 10 | 6 | 11 | 6 | 15 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 18 | |
| 7 | 9 | 7 | 18 | 7 | 15 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 15 | |
| 8 | 18 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 8 | 14 | |
| Activation | tanh | tanh | tanh | tanh | tanh | |||||
| RMSE | 0.08800 | 0.08883 | 0.08893 | 0.08969 | 0.09110 | |||||
Note. HL = Hidden Layer; N = Number of neurons.
Hyperparameter search space.
| Hyperparameter | Run 1 | Run 2 | Run 3 | Run 4 | Run 5 | Run 6 | Run 7 | Run 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of hidden layers | 1 | 1, 2 | 1 to 3 | 1 to 4 | 1 to 5 | 1 to 6 | 1 to 7 | 1 to 8 |
| Number of neurons | 4 to 20 | 4 to 20 | 4 to 20 | 4 to 20 | 4 to 20 | 4 to 20 | 4 to 20 | 4 to 20 |
| Activation functions | tanh, ReLU, PReLU, LeakyReLU, ELU | |||||||
Hyperparameter search results summary (Run 7).
Top 5 Models out of 250 candidate models from Run 7.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | |
| Number of neurons | 1 | 17 | 1 | 18 | 1 | 17 | 1 | 20 | 1 | 12 |
| 2 | 18 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 16 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 10 | |
| 3 | 17 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 16 | 3 | 18 | |
| 4 | 20 | 4 | 19 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 5 | |
| 5 | 17 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 19 | 5 | 7 | |
| 6 | 19 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 6 | 18 | 6 | 10 | |
| 7 | 17 | 7 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 7 | 20 | 7 | 11 | |
| Activation | tanh | tanh | tanh | tanh | tanh | |||||
| RMSE | 0.07719 | 0.08734 | 0.08783 | 0.09711 | 0.09879 | |||||
Note. HL = Hidden Layer; N = Number of neurons.
RMSE per epoch for the optimised DNN model.
| Epoch | Train error | Test error |
|---|---|---|
| 25/1000 | 0.0795 | 0.0757 |
| 115/1000 | 0.0657 | 0.0653 |
| 193/1000 | 0.0652 | 0.0664 |
| 263/1000 | 0.0597 | 0.0594 |
| 306/1000 | 0.0594 | 0.0596 |
| 426/1000 | 0.0591 | 0.0591 |
| 507/1000 | 0.0587 | 0.0595 |
| 603/1000 | 0.0585 | 0.0591 |
| 795/1000 | 0.0578 | 0.0587 |
| 831/1000 | 0.0576 | 0.0581 |
| 985/1000 | 0.0567 | 0.0573 |
Fig 4SHAP values to estimate variables’ prediction contributions.
Note. X1 = performance; X2 = expectations; X3 = disconfirmation; X4 = enjoyment.
Fig 6Gradient values to estimate variables’ prediction contributions.
Note. X1 = performance; X2 = expectations; X3 = disconfirmation; X4 = enjoyment.
Hyperparameter search results summary (Run 2).
Top 5 Models out of 250 candidate models from Run 2.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | |
| Number of neurons | 1 | 14 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 18 | 1 | 16 | 1 | 12 |
| 2 | 12 | 2 | 16 | 2 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 11 | |
| Activation | PReLU | PReLU | tanh | tanh | tanh | |||||
| RMSE | 0.10873 | 0.11907 | 0.12097 | 0.12414 | 0.12436 | |||||
Note. HL = Hidden Layer; N = Number of neurons.
Hyperparameter search results summary (Run 3).
Top 5 Models out of 250 candidate models from Run 3.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | |
| Number of neurons | 1 | 17 | 1 | 19 | 1 | 13 | 1 | 17 | 1 | 10 |
| 2 | 19 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 12 | 2 | 12 | 2 | 12 | |
| 3 | 17 | 3 | 20 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 8 | |
| Activation | tanh | tanh | PReLU | PReLU | tanh | |||||
| RMSE | 0.10294 | 0.10649 | 0.10852 | 0.11214 | 0.11554 | |||||
Note. HL = Hidden Layer; N = Number of neurons.
Hyperparameter search results summary (Run 4).
Top 5 Models out of 250 candidate models from Run 4.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | |
| Number of neurons | 1 | 18 | 1 | 19 | 1 | 19 | 1 | 18 | 1 | 14 |
| 2 | 19 | 2 | 15 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 17 | 2 | 9 | |
| 3 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 14 | 3 | 12 | |
| 4 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 14 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 17 | |
| Activation | tanh | PReLU | tanh | tanh | PReLU | |||||
| RMSE | 0.09732 | 0.10080 | 0.10466 | 0.10610 | 0.10677 | |||||
Note. HL = Hidden Layer; N = Number of neurons.
Hyperparameter search results summary (Run 5).
Top 5 Models out of 250 candidate models from Run 5.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | |
| Number of neurons | 1 | 14 | 1 | 19 | 1 | 17 | 1 | 15 | 1 | 16 |
| 2 | 14 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 12 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 11 | |
| 3 | 16 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 17 | 3 | 16 | 3 | 18 | |
| 4 | 17 | 4 | 15 | 4 | 19 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 13 | |
| 5 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 17 | 5 | 20 | |
| Activation | tanh | tanh | tanh | tanh | tanh | |||||
| RMSE | 0.09801 | 0.09913 | 0.10197 | 0.10375 | 0.10620 | |||||
Note. HL = Hidden Layer; N = Number of neurons.
Hyperparameter search results summary (Run 6).
Top 5 Models out of 250 candidate models from Run 6.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | HL | N | |
| Number of neurons | 1 | 7 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 17 | 1 | 14 | 1 | 11 |
| 2 | 16 | 2 | 16 | 2 | 12 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 9 | |
| 3 | 10 | 3 | 18 | 3 | 17 | 3 | 11 | 3 | 4 | |
| 4 | 17 | 4 | 9 | 4 | 19 | 4 | 11 | 4 | 7 | |
| 5 | 11 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 15 | 5 | 17 | |
| 6 | 9 | 6 | 16 | 6 | 9 | 6 | 11 | 6 | 18 | |
| Activation | tanh | tanh | tanh | tanh | tanh | |||||
| RMSE | 0.09509 | 0.09820 | 0.10610 | 0.10375 | 0.10892 | |||||
Note. HL = Hidden Layer; N = Number of neurons.