| Literature DB >> 35270445 |
Munshi Muhammad Abdul Kader Jilani1, Md Moniruzzaman1,2, Mouri Dey3, Edris Alam4,5, Md Aftab Uddin6.
Abstract
Recent advancements in mHealth apps and services have played a vital role in strengthening healthcare services and enabling their accessibility to marginalized people. With the alarming rise in COVID-19 infection rates around the world, there appears to be an urgent call to modernize traditional medical practices to combat the pandemic. This study aims to investigate the key factors influencing the trialability of mHealth apps/services and behavioral intention to adopt mobile health applications. The study also examines the moderating effects of self-discipline motivation, knowledge, and attitude on the relationship between trialability and behavioral intention to use. The deductive reasoning approach was followed in a positivism paradigm. The study used convenience sampling and collected responses from 280 Generation Y participants in Bangladesh. Partial least square-based structural equation modeling was employed. The results revealed that relative advantage (β = 0.229, p < 0.05), compatibility (β = 0.232, p < 0.05), complexity (β = -0.411, p < 0.05), and observability (β = 0.235, p < 0.05) of mHealth apps influence the trialability of mHealth apps and services among users. Trialability compatibility (β = 0.425, p < 0.05) of mHealth was positively related to the behavioral intention to use these mobile apps. The study found no moderating effects of attitude (β = 0.043, p > 0.05) or self-discipline motivation (β = -0.007, p > 0.05) on the hypothesized relationships. The empirical findings of this study may facilitate the development, design process, and implementation of mHealth applications with improved features that can lead to high user acceptance among Generation Y during future health crises.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; DOI model; Generation Y; mHealth
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35270445 PMCID: PMC8910131 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052752
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Proposed conceptual model framework.
Figure 2Flowchart of participants’ inclusion.
Correlation matrix estimates for discriminant validity.
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control variables | |||||||||||||
| 1. Age | 1 | ||||||||||||
| 2. Occupation | 0.079 | 1 | |||||||||||
| 3. Education | −0.024 | 0.044 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 4. Economic status | −0.022 | 0.080 | 0.053 | 1 | |||||||||
| 5. Gender | 0.112 | 0.050 | 0.090 | −0.072 | 1 | ||||||||
| Latent variables | |||||||||||||
| 6. RLA | 0.016 | −0.083 | −0.012 | 0.014 | 0.116 | 0.791 | |||||||
| 7. CMP | −0.037 | 0.072 | 0.064 | −0.017 | 0.071 | 0.216 ** | 0.869 | ||||||
| 8. CML | −0.021 | 0.017 | 0.005 | −0.103 | 0.062 | −0.263 ** | −0.484 ** | 0.862 | |||||
| 9. OBS | −0.042 | 0.004 | −0.091 | 0.011 | 0.107 | 0.274 ** | 0.255 ** | −0.354 ** | 0.936 | ||||
| 10. TLH | −0.024 | 0.021 | 0.031 | −0.051 | 0.120 * | 0.452 ** | 0.541 ** | −0.665 ** | 0.503 ** | 0.851 | |||
| 11. Attitude | 0.051 | 0.013 | 0.103 | −0.086 | 0.089 | 0.332 ** | 0.416 ** | −0.502 ** | 0.360 ** | 0.724 ** | 0.814 | ||
| 12. SDM | 0.035 | 0.034 | 0.077 | −0.080 | 0.090 | 0.329 ** | 0.323 ** | −0.277 ** | 0.235 ** | 0.491 ** | 0.686 ** | 0.812 | |
| 13. BIU | −0.048 | −0.032 | 0.032 | −0.099 | 0.063 | 0.284 ** | 0.236 ** | −0.281 ** | 0.191 ** | 0.467 ** | 0.629 ** | 0.443 ** | 0.825 |
| Mean | − | − | − | − | − | 3.88 | 3.80 | 1.91 | 3.93 | 3.84 | 3.78 | 3.84 | 3.85 |
| Std. Deviation | − | − | − | − | − | 0.575 | 0.818 | 0.755 | 0.865 | 0.749 | 0.657 | 0.623 | 0.598 |
*. Correlation is significant at p < 0.05 (2-tailed), **. Correlation is significant at p < 0.01 (2-tailed), RLA = Relative advantage, CMP = Compatibility, CML = Complexity, OBS = Observability, TLH = Trialability, SDM = Self-discipline motivation, and BIU = Behavioral intention to use.
Estimates on convergent validity and internal reliability.
| Latent Variables | Items | AVE | CR | CA | SFL | t-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative advantage | RLA1 | 0.626 | 0.921 | 0.900 | 0.774 | 4.46 |
| RLA2 | 0.798 | 5.44 | ||||
| RLA3 | 0.794 | 5.42 | ||||
| RLA4 | 0.812 | 5.71 | ||||
| RLA5 | 0.767 | 5.40 | ||||
| RLA6 | 0.803 | 5.43 | ||||
| RLA7 | 0.787 | 5.92 | ||||
| Compatibility | CMP1 | 0.756 | 0.925 | 0.892 | 0.881 | 10.18 |
| CMP2 | 0.871 | 9.44 | ||||
| CMP3 | 0.867 | 9.79 | ||||
| CPM4 | 0.858 | 9.45 | ||||
| Complexity | CML1 | 0.742 | 0.920 | 0.885 | 0.848 | 11.68 |
| CML2 | 0.850 | 11.70 | ||||
| CML3 | 0.885 | 12.78 | ||||
| CML4 | 0.864 | 12.98 | ||||
| Observability | OBS1 | 0.876 | 0.934 | 0.858 | 0.935 | 13.26 |
| OBS2 | 0.937 | 13.28 | ||||
| Trialability | TLH1 | 0.724 | 0.929 | 0.905 | 0.857 | 21.05 |
| TLH2 | 0.835 | 18.28 | ||||
| TLH3 | 0.851 | 22.81 | ||||
| TLH4 | 0.851 | 22.12 | ||||
| TLH5 | 0.860 | 21.70 | ||||
| Attitude | AT1 | 0.663 | 0.887 | 0.831 | 0.814 | 9.72 |
| AT2 | 0.802 | 8.78 | ||||
| AT3 | 0.811 | 9.12 | ||||
| AT4 | 0.830 | 9.78 | ||||
| Self-discipline motivation | SDM1 | 0.660 | 0.853 | 0.743 | 0.807 | 11.93 |
| SDM2 | 0.808 | 11.40 | ||||
| SDM3 | 0.822 | 13.46 | ||||
| Behavioral intention to use | BIU1 | 0.681 | 0.895 | 0.844 | 0.820 | 18.21 |
| BIU2 | 0.818 | 18.73 | ||||
| BIU3 | 0.805 | 18.23 | ||||
| BIU4 | 0.857 | 20.86 |
Note: AVE = Average variance extracted, CR = Composite reliability, CA = Cronbach’s alpha, SFL = Standard factor loadings.
Direct effects of the structural model.
| Hypothesis | Path Relations | β | Standard Error | T Statistics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Relative Advantage → Trialability | 0.229 | 0.075 | 3.071 |
| H2 | Compatibility → Trialability | 0.232 | 0.083 | 2.796 |
| H3 | Complexity → Trialability | −0.411 | 0.086 | 4.776 |
| H4 | Observability → Trialability | 0.235 | 0.080 | 2.941 |
| H5 | Trialability → Behavioral Intention | 0.415 | 0.103 | 4.022 |
Figure 3Structural model and corresponding path estimates.
Moderating effects of knowledge attitude and self-discipline motivation.
| Variable | Behavioral Intention to Use | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
| Intercept | 2.417 | 1.639 | 2.100 |
| Trialability | 0.373 * | 0.020 | −0.108 |
| Attitude | 0.542 * | 0.391 ** | |
| Self-discipline motivation | 0.021 | 0.038 | |
| Trialability x Attitude | 0.043 | ||
| Trialability x Self-discipline motivation | −0.007 | ||
|
| 0.218 | 0.397 | 0.398 |
| Δ | 0.179 | 0.001 | |
*. Regression is significant at p < 0.001 and **. Regression is significant at p < 0.05.
Figure 4Moderating effect of attitude.
Figure 5Moderating effect of SDM.