| Literature DB >> 35879982 |
Sofia Balula Dias1, Yannis Oikonomidis2, José Alves Diniz1, Fátima Baptista1, Filomena Carnide1, Alex Bensenousi2, José María Botana3, Dorothea Tsatsou4, Kiriakos Stefanidis4, Lazaros Gymnopoulos4, Kosmas Dimitropoulos4, Petros Daras4, Anagnostis Argiriou5, Konstantinos Rouskas5, Saskia Wilson-Barnes6, Kathryn Hart6, Neil Merry7, Duncan Russell7, Jelizaveta Konstantinova7, Elena Lalama8, Andreas Pfeiffer8, Anna Kokkinopoulou9, Maria Hassapidou9, Ioannis Pagkalos9, Elena Patra9, Roselien Buys10, Véronique Cornelissen10, Ana Batista11, Stefano Cobello12, Elena Milli12, Chiara Vagnozzi13, Sheree Bryant14, Simon Maas15, Pedro Bacelar16, Saverio Gravina17, Jovana Vlaskalin18, Boris Brkic18, Gonçalo Telo19, Eugenio Mantovani20, Olga Gkotsopoulou20, Dimitrios Iakovakis21, Stelios Hadjidimitriou21, Vasileios Charisis21, Leontios J Hadjileontiadis22,21.
Abstract
The ubiquitous nature of smartphone ownership, its broad application and usage, along with its interactive delivery of timely feedback are appealing for health-related behavior change interventions via mobile apps. However, users' perspectives about such apps are vital in better bridging the gap between their design intention and effective practical usage. In this vein, a modified technology acceptance model (mTAM) is proposed here, to explain the relationship between users' perspectives when using an AI-based smartphone app for personalized nutrition and healthy living, namely, PROTEIN, and the mTAM constructs toward behavior change in their nutrition and physical activity habits. In particular, online survey data from 85 users of the PROTEIN app within a period of 2 months were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and regression analysis (RA) to reveal the relationship of the mTAM constructs, i.e., perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEoU), perceived novelty (PN), perceived personalization (PP), usage attitude (UA), and usage intention (UI) with the users' behavior change (BC), as expressed via the acceptance/rejection of six related hypotheses (H1-H6), respectively. The resulted CFA-related parameters, i.e., factor loading (FL) with the related p-value, average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability (CR), along with the RA results, have shown that all hypotheses H1-H6 can be accepted (p < 0.001). In particular, it was found that, in all cases, FL > 0.5, CR > 0.7, AVE > 0.5, indicating that the items/constructs within the mTAM framework have good convergent validity. Moreover, the adjusted coefficient of determination (R 2) was found within the range of 0.224-0.732, justifying the positive effect of PU, PEoU, PN, and PP on the UA, that in turn positively affects the UI, leading to the BC. Additionally, using a hierarchical RA, a significant change in the prediction of BC from UA when the UI is used as a mediating variable was identified. The explored mTAM framework provides the means for explaining the role of each construct in the functionality of the PROTEIN app as a supportive tool for the users to improve their healthy living by adopting behavior change in their dietary and physical activity habits. The findings herein offer insights and references for formulating new strategies and policies to improve the collaboration among app designers, developers, behavior scientists, nutritionists, physical activity/exercise physiology experts, and marketing experts for app design/development toward behavior change.Entities:
Keywords: AI-based personalized nutrition; PROTEIN app; behavior change; healthy living; mobile application; modified Technology Acceptance Model (mTAM); smartphone app-based nutrition support
Year: 2022 PMID: 35879982 PMCID: PMC9307489 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.898031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Figure 1Screen shots of the PROTEIN mobile application [Source: Google Play Srore].
Figure 2The proposed mTAM framework and the corresponding hypothesis (H1–H6).
Figure 3Path relationships between mTAM main constructs (Figure 2) and related items via the values of adj R2 and the estimated regression coefficients (in italics). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Reliability, validity and least squares regression analysis results for the adopted mTAM model (Figures 2, 3).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| 1 | “Helps me to improve my health” | PU | 0.8367 | 0.72 (***) | 0.531 | 0.815 | - | 0.145 | 0.129 | 0.416 (0.137) | 9.18 (1.54) | 3.03 | 0.004 | [0.141:0.692] |
| 2 | “Helps me to exercise more” | 0.90 (***) | - | 0.207 | 0.193 | 0.410 (0.106) | 14.91 (1.57) | 3.86 | *** | [0.197:0.624] | ||||
| 3 | “Recommends me suitable activities” | 0.65 | - | 0.322 | 0.309 | 0.557 (0.108) | 26.13 (1.55) | 5.11 | *** | [0.338:0.775] | ||||
| 4 | “Helps me plan healthier meals” | 0.60 (***) | - | 0.328 | 0.315 | 0.575 (0.111) | 26.84 (1.55) | 5.18 | *** | [0.352:0.798] | ||||
| 5 | “Easy in organizing supermarket shopping list” | PEoU | 0.7757 | 0.45 (***) | 0.581 | 0.710 | - | 0.341 | 0.327 | 0.657 (0.133) | 24.40 (1.47) | 4.94 | *** | [0.389:0.924] |
| 6 | “Easy in interaction” | 0.98 (***) | - | 0.397 | 0.387 | 0.956 (0.155) | 37.63 (1.57) | 6.13 | *** | [0.644:1.268] | ||||
| 5 | “Provides novel meal/activity recording” | PN | 0.7674 | 0.48 (***) | 0.585 | 0.717 | - | 0.110 | 0.100 | 0.42 (0.165) | 6.44 (1.52) | 2.54 | 0.014 | [0.088:0.753] |
| 6 | “Differs from other related app” | 0.97 (***) | - | 0.724 | 0.719 | 1.190 (0.102) | 134 (1.51) | 11.58 | *** | [0.984:1.397] | ||||
| 7 | “Provides personalized notifications” | PP | 0.8071 | 0.93 (***) | 0.515 | 0.735 | - | 0.421 | 0.411 | 0.596 (0.092) | 41.53 (1.57) | 6.44 | *** | [0.411:0.782] |
| 8 | “Provides personalized achievements” | 0.76 (***) | - | 0.352 | 0.313 | 0.534 (0.102) | 27.47 (1.57) | 5.24 | *** | [0.330:0.739] | ||||
| 9 | “Provides complete personalized profile” | 0.32 (***) | - | 0.353 | 0.341 | 0.548 (0.097) | 31.64 (1.58) | 5.62 | *** | [0.353:0.743] | ||||
| 10 | PU | UA | 0.8456 | 0.77 (***) | 0.541 | 0.821 | H1 (AC) | 0.318 | 0.306 | 0.333 (0.065) | 26.12 (1.56) | 5.11 | *** | [0.202:0.463] |
| 11 | PEoU | 0.91 (***) | H2 (AC) | 0.446 | 0.436 | 0.357 (0.053) | 45.07 (1.56) | 6.71 | *** | [0.250:0.463] | ||||
| 12 | PN | 0.59 (***) | H3 (AC) | 0.239 | 0.224 | 0.314 (0.078) | 16.06 (1.51) | 4.01 | *** | [0.156:0.471] | ||||
| 13 | PP | 0.63 (***) | H4 (AC) | 0.434 | 0.424 | 0.568 (0.085) | 43.81 (1.57) | 6.62 | *** | [0.396:0.740] | ||||
| 14 | UA | UI | - | 0.86 (***) | - | - | H5 (AC) | 0.740 | 0.732 | 2.360 (0.188) | 156.90 (1.56) | 12.53 | *** | [1.982:2.737] |
| 15 | UI | BC | - | 0.67 (***) | - | - | H6 (AC) | 0.455 | 0.445 | 0.273 (0.040) | 46.80 (1.56) | 6.84 | *** | [0.193:0.353] |
FL, Factor Loading; AVE, Average Variance Extracted; CR, Composite Reliability; AC, Accepted; RJ, Rejected; adj, Adjusted coefficient of determination R.
Hierarchical regression results for examining the mediation role of UA, UI in BC prediction in the adopted mTAM model (Figures 2, 3).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| 1 | UA | - | BC | 0.322 | 0.310 | 0.640 (0.122) | 27.16 (1.57) | 5.21 | *** | [0.394:0.886] |
| 2 | UA | 0.456 | 0.436 | −0.071 (0.215) | 23.09 (2.,55) | −0.33 | 0.742 | [−0.504:0.361] | ||
| UI | 0.295 (0.078) | 3.77 | *** | [0.138:0.452] | ||||||
| Mediation effect of UI (Path No 1 vs. Path No 2) | adj | 12.385 (1.55) | 0.001 | |||||||
Adj, Adjusted coefficient of determination R.