| Literature DB >> 35875013 |
Qing Yang1, Abdullah Al Mamun1, Naeem Hayat2, Gao Jingzu3, Mohammad Enamul Hoque4, Anas A Salameh5.
Abstract
Wearable fitness devices (WFDs) are prevalent personal technology that empowers the users' management and supervision of their personal health. The current study explored the impact of health consciousness, health motivation, perceived cost, compatibility, usefulness, and perceived technology accuracy with the intention to use the WFDs. Furthermore, the users' conspicuous consumption and intention promote the usage of WFDs. A cross-sectional and quantitative research design was utilized for the current study, followed by data collection through social media and a final analysis with 1,071 samples data. The data analysis was accomplished with the partial least square regression structural equation modeling. The findings of this study revealed that the users' level of health consciousness, perceived compatibility, usefulness, perceived cost, and technology accuracy significantly influenced the intention to use WFDs. However, the conspicuous consumption and intention indicated the support for the usage behavior of the WFDs. This behavior significantly moderated the relationship between the intention and usage behavior for the WFDs. This study contributed to the theoretical realm for prompting the intention to use the WFDs with personal protection motivation that depicts the coping strategy and technology level attributes that form the intention to use WFDs. The WFDs manufacturers should therefore focus on developing WFDs features that harness usage behavior among the adults. Developing the personal responsibility to reduce the burden of the healthcare system and taking care of personal health could promote the usage of the WFDs.Entities:
Keywords: adoption; conspicuous consumption; intention; wearable fitness device; youth
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35875013 PMCID: PMC9301884 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.918989
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Research framework.
Demographic characteristics.
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| Male | 551 | 51.3 | Secondary school certificate | 120 | 11.2 |
| Female | 523 | 48.7 | Diploma | 242 | 22.5 |
| Total | 1074 | 100 | Bachelor degree or equivalent | 476 | 44.3 |
| Master's degree | 180 | 16.8 | |||
|
| Doctoral degree | 56 | 5.2 | ||
| 18 or Less than 18 years | 61 | 5.70 | Total | 1074 | 100 |
| 18-22 years | 225 | 20.9 | |||
| 23-26 years | 330 | 30.7 |
| ||
| 27-30 years | 248 | 23.1 | Below CNY 2500 | 225 | 20.9 |
| 31 years or above | 210 | 19.6 | CNY 2501- CNY 5000 | 236 | 22.0 |
| Total | 1074 | 100 | CNY 5001- CNY 7500 | 233 | 21.7 |
| CNY 7501- CNY 10,000 | 162 | 15.1 | |||
|
| CNY 10,001- CNY 12,500 | 98 | 9.1 | ||
| Beijing | 86 | 8.0 | More than CNY 12,500 | 120 | 11.2 |
| Shanghai | 125 | 11.6 | Total | 1074 | 100 |
| Guangdong | 60 | 5.6 | |||
| Guangxi | 71 | 6.6 | |||
| Zhejiang | 90 | 8.4 | |||
| Shandong | 91 | 8.5 | |||
| Hunan | 58 | 5.4 | |||
| Jiangsu | 108 | 10.1 | |||
| Others | 385 | 35.8 | |||
| Total | 1074 | 100 |
Reliability and validity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HCS | 4 | 5.462 | 1.122 | 0.804 | 0.809 | 0.872 | 0.631 | 2.173 |
| HMN | 4 | 5.331 | 1.131 | 0.815 | 0.816 | 0.878 | 0.643 | 2.728 |
| PCM | 5 | 5.160 | 1.130 | 0.863 | 0.864 | 0.901 | 0.647 | 2.785 |
| PCT | 5 | 4.911 | 0.990 | 0.758 | 0.758 | 0.837 | 0.507 | 2.069 |
| PUF | 3 | 5.158 | 1.132 | 0.778 | 0.780 | 0.871 | 0.693 | 2.663 |
| PTA | 3 | 5.110 | 1.094 | 0.741 | 0.744 | 0.853 | 0.659 | 2.447 |
| CCM | 4 | 5.048 | 1.105 | 0.822 | 0.824 | 0.882 | 0.652 | 1.959 |
| IWFD | 4 | 5.162 | 1.067 | 0.842 | 0.842 | 0.894 | 0.679 | 1.967 |
| UWFD | 1 | 5.020 | 1.412 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | – |
HCS, Health consciousness; HMN, health motivation; PCM, perceived compatibility; PCT, perceived cost; PUF, perceived usefulness; PTA, perceived technology accuracy; CCM, conspicuous consumption; IWFD, intention to use WFD; UWFD, usage of WFD.
Author's data analysis.
Path coefficients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||
| H1 | HCS → IWD | 0.079 | 0.025 | 0.133 | 2.377 | 0.009 | 0.007 | Supported | ||
| H2 | HMN → IWD | −0.002 | −0.066 | 0.056 | 0.061 | 0.476 | 0.000 | Rejected | ||
| H3 | PCM → IWD | 0.170 | 0.112 | 0.230 | 4.648 | 0.000 | 0.620 | 0.416 | 0.027 | Supported |
| H4 | PCT → IWD | 0.049 | 0.006 | 0.097 | 1.755 | 0.040 | 0.003 | Supported | ||
| H5 | PUF → IWD | 0.287 | 0.210 | 0.353 | 6.534 | 0.000 | 0.082 | Supported | ||
| H6 | PTA → IWD | 0.333 | 0.264 | 0.411 | 7.300 | 0.000 | 0.119 | Supported | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| H7 | IWD → UWFD | 0.332 | 0.266 | 0.403 | 8.093 | 0.000 | 0.444 | 0.436 | 0.101 | Supported |
HCS, Health consciousness; HMN, health motivation; PCM, perceived compatibility; PCT, perceived cost; PUF, perceived usefulness; PTA, perceived technology accuracy; CCM, conspicuous consumption; IWFD, intention to use WFD; UWFD, usage of WFD.
Author's data analysis.
Figure 2Structural model with path weights.
Mediating effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| HM1 | HCS → IWD → UWFD | 0.026 | 0.008 | 0.047 | 2.196 | 0.014 | Accept |
| HM2 | HMN → IWD → UWFD | −0.001 | −0.022 | 0.018 | 0.060 | 0.476 | Reject |
| HM3 | PCM → IWD → UWFD | 0.056 | 0.036 | 0.080 | 4.128 | 0.000 | Accept |
| HM4 | PCT → IWD → UWFD | 0.016 | 0.002 | 0.032 | 1.708 | 0.044 | Accept |
| HM5 | PUF → IWD → UWFD | 0.095 | 0.064 | 0.126 | 5.279 | 0.000 | Accept |
| HM6 | PTA → IWD → UWFD | 0.110 | 0.077 | 0.150 | 5.001 | 0.000 | Accept |
HCS, Health consciousness; HMN, health motivation; PCM, perceived compatibility; PCT, perceived cost; PUF, perceived usefulness; PTA, perceived technology accuracy; CCM, conspicuous consumption; IWFD, intention to use WFD; UWFD, usage of WFD.
Author's data analysis.
Moderating effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCMxIWD → AWD | 0.051 | 0.014 | 0.092 | 2.140 | 0.016 | Full moderation |
CCM, Conspicuous consumption; IWFD, intention to use WFD; UWFD, usage of WFD.
Author's data analysis.
Figure 3Moderating effect.