| Literature DB >> 35013631 |
Ahmed Ibrahim Alzahrani1, Hosam Al-Samarraie2, Atef Eldenfria3, Joana Eva Dodoo4, Nasser Alalwan1.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has changed the way we use and perceive online services. This study examined the influence of service quality factors during COVID-19 on individuals' intention to continue use mHealth services. A decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) approach was used to identify and analyse the relationships between service quality and individuals' intention to continue use mHealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Individuals' direct, indirect, and interdependent behaviours in relation to service quality and continues use of mHealth were studied. A total of 126 respondents were involved in this study. The results identified several associations between service quality factors and individuals' continuous use of mHealth. The most important factor found to influence users' decision to continuously use mHealth was assurance, followed by hedonic benefits, efficiency, reliability, and content quality. The relevant cause-and-effect relationships were identified and the direction for quality improvement was discussed. The outcomes from this study can support healthcare policy makers to swiftly and widely respond to COVID-19 challenges. The findings provide fundamental insights for healthcare organisations to promote continuous use of mHealth among people by prioritising service improvements.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Continuous intention; DEMATEL; Service quality; mHealth
Year: 2022 PMID: 35013631 PMCID: PMC8730779 DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101862
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Technol Soc ISSN: 0160-791X
Fig. 1The proposed service quality factors.
Sample characteristics (n:126).
| Characteristics | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Male | 60 (47.6%) |
| Female | 66 (52.4%) |
| 18-23 | 9 (7.2%) |
| 24-29 | 12 (9.5%) |
| 75 (59.5%) | |
| >35 | 30 (23.8%) |
| Bachelor | 16 (12.6%) |
| Master | 76 (60.4%) |
| PhD | 34 (27%) |
| Science | 83 (66%) |
| Social Science | 43 (34%) |
mHealth characteristics (n:126).
| Characteristics | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Operating System | |
| iOS store only (Apple) | 32 (25.4%) |
| Google Play only (Android) | 86 (68.3%) |
| Both iOS and Google | 8 (6.3%) |
| Cost | |
| Free | 118 (93.7%) |
| Free for full access | 3 (2.3%) |
| Subscription (monthly or annual) | 5 (4%) |
| Purpose of use | |
| Contact tracing | 58 (46%) |
| Health advice | 21 (16.6%) |
| Health updates | 37 (29.4) |
| Managing health symptoms | 10 (8%) |
The proposed pairwise relationships.
Instructions for filling out the index: 0 = No influence; 1 = Very low influence; 2 = Low influence; 3 = High influence; and 4 = Very high influence.
Fig. 2DEMATEL steps.
Service quality factors influencing continuous intention to use mHealth.
| Factors | Description |
|---|---|
| F1 | Reliability |
| F2 | Tangibility |
| F3 | Availability |
| F4 | Efficiency |
| F5 | Content quality |
| F6 | Responsiveness |
| F7 | Assurance |
| F8 | Hedonic benefits |
Scores of the relations.
| Type of relations between variables | Influence score |
|---|---|
| No influence | 0 |
| Very low influence | 1 |
| Low influence | 2 |
| High influence | 3 |
| Very high influence | 4 |
Fig. 3The causal graph.
Averaged cause-effect matrix.
| Averaged Cause-effect matrix | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 0.00 | 2.34 | 4.00 | 3.23 | 2.31 | 2.79 | 3.51 | 3.11 |
| F2 | 2.11 | 0.00 | 3.12 | 2.67 | 2.75 | 2.20 | 3.10 | 2.90 |
| F3 | 3.53 | 3.10 | 0.00 | 3.42 | 2.87 | 2.74 | 3.42 | 3.75 |
| F4 | 2.90 | 2.76 | 3.54 | 0.00 | 3.57 | 2.50 | 3.63 | 2.78 |
| F5 | 3.10 | 2.89 | 3.78 | 2.67 | 0.00 | 2.78 | 3.10 | 3.40 |
| F6 | 2.10 | 2.53 | 3.10 | 2.78 | 2.31 | 0.00 | 2.10 | 2.56 |
| F7 | 3.56 | 3.86 | 3.94 | 3.64 | 3.10 | 2.90 | 0.00 | 3.50 |
| F8 | 3.56 | 3.42 | 3.90 | 2.40 | 2.30 | 3.56 | 3.57 | 0.00 |
Normalized cause-effect matrix.
| Normalized cause-effect matrix | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.12 |
| F2 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.11 |
| F3 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.15 |
| F4 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.11 |
| F5 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.13 |
| F6 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.10 |
| F7 | 0.14 | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.14 |
| F8 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.00 |
Total cause-effect matrix.
| Total Cause-effect matrix | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 0.58 | 0.67 | 0.82 | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.74 | 0.72 |
| F2 | 0.60 | 0.52 | 0.72 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 0.57 | 0.66 | 0.65 |
| F3 | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.77 | 0.77 |
| F4 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.82 | 0.59 | 0.67 | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.72 |
| F5 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.83 | 0.68 | 0.54 | 0.65 | 0.74 | 0.73 |
| F6 | 0.56 | 0.57 | 0.68 | 0.58 | 0.53 | 0.45 | 0.59 | 0.60 |
| F7 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.91 | 0.78 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.70 | 0.81 |
| F8 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.85 | 0.69 | 0.65 | 0.69 | 0.77 | 0.64 |
The resulted relations between factors.
| Factors | R | C | R + C | R–C | Group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 5.48 | 5.38 | 10.86 | 0.10 | Cause |
| F2 | 4.91 | 5.37 | 10.28 | −0.47 | Effect |
| F3 | 5.81 | 6.36 | 12.18 | −0.55 | Effect |
| F4 | 5.57 | 5.35 | 10.92 | 0.22 | Cause |
| F5 | 5.56 | 4.97 | 10.53 | 0.59 | Cause |
| F6 | 4.55 | 5.03 | 9.57 | −0.48 | Effect |
| F7 | 6.17 | 5.72 | 11.90 | 0.45 | Cause |
| F8 | 5.76 | 5.63 | 11.38 | 0.13 | Cause |
Fig. 4The DEMATEL map.