| Literature DB >> 35885854 |
Ruhul Amin1, Md Alamgir Hossain2, Md Minhaj Uddin3, Mohammad Toriqul Islam Jony4, Minho Kim5.
Abstract
Telemedicine ensures quality, cost-effective, and equally accessible healthcare services for everyone. Nonetheless, a poor usage rate could curb its progression in developing cultures like Bangladesh. Therefore, this research examines how external stimuli promote the continuous usage intentions of synchronous telemedicine services through engagement and satisfaction by deploying the stimulus-organism-response framework. A final sample of 312 telemedicine users was analyzed using the structural equation modeling in AMOS. The average age of the participants was 26.28 (std. deviation 5.53), and their average use of telemedicine was 2.39 times (std. deviation 1.31) over the last six months. This study empirically endorsed that the stimuli, including performance expectancy, information quality, and contamination avoidance, as well as organismic factors such as engagement and satisfaction, directly impacted the continuance desires for telemedicine use. In addition, the analyses validated the mediation roles of engagement and satisfaction. Furthermore, performance and effort expectancies influenced engagement, which affected satisfaction along with performance expectancy, functionality, and information quality. Accordingly, telemedicine facilitators should integrate these critical attributes into the system to sustain engagement, satisfaction, and usage intentions. This study has pioneered the effects of performance and effort expectancies on continuous usage intentions facilitated by engagement and satisfaction in the telemedicine landscape.Entities:
Keywords: continuous usage intention; engagement; satisfaction; stimulus-organism-response framework; telemedicine
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885854 PMCID: PMC9318589 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10071327
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Summary of the latest research on the context of telemedicine services in both developed and developing economies.
| Authors | Main Objective | Significant Findings/Hypotheses | Limitations | Proposed Solution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bamufleh et al. [ | To examine Saudi Arabians’ adoption intentions of e-government health applications during | ease of use→usefulness | These authors did not perform any mediation test of organismic variables like attitude. | Our study explores if cognitive and affective variables like engagement and satisfaction mediate the paths between external stimuli and usage intention of telemedicine. |
| An et al. [ | To explore the factors motivating the South Korean citizens to accept telemedicine services during the pandemic. | increased accessibility→usefulness | ||
| Alam et al. [ | To examine the | performance expectancy→behavioral intention | ||
| Baudier et al. [ | To investigate the usage intention of telemedicine | habit→intention to use | ||
| Ouimet et al. [ | To investigate Canadian patients’ continuous usage intention of | usefulness→continuance usage intention | These authors did not use any theoretical framework to develop their research model. They also examined the consumers’ usage intention with the inclusion of a handful of variables, which might narrow the perspective of the study. | Our research is based on the S-O-R framework. It examines the context of telemedicine by adding seven stimuli, two organismic factors, and one response variable, which might broaden our study’s perspective. |
| Luo et al. [ | To investigate the drivers of | vulnerability→self-efficacy | This study mainly emphasized the psychological factors of using telehealth apps. | The present model offers a possible solution to this limitation by adding telemedicine interface, attributes, and performance-related variables, such as performance and effort expectancies, functionality, information quality, etc. |
| Serrano et al. [ | To examine the | performance expectancy→intention to use | These studies did not use any psychological variables to examine the context of telemedicine. | We incorporate one cognitive variable (i.e., engagement) and one affective variable (i.e., satisfaction) into our model. |
| Molfenter et al. [ | To investigate healthcare | ease of use→future intention to use |
Figure 1Hypothesized research model. Mediating paths: PE→ENG→CUI (H10a), EE→ENG→CUI (H10b), PE→SAT→CUI (H11a), EE→SAT→CUI (H11b), and FC→SAT→CUI (H11c). Notes: performance expectancy = PE, effort expectancy = EE, facilitating condition = FC, price value = PV, contamination avoidance = CA, engagement = ENG, functionality = FUNC, information quality = IQ, satisfaction = SAT, and continuous usage intention = CUI.
Measurement Instruments.
| Constructs (Sources) | Items | Mean | Std. Dev. | Statements |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance Expectancy (PE) [ | PE2 | 5.92 | 1.190 | Telemedicine would allow me to access healthcare services faster. |
| PE3 | 5.54 | 1.213 | Telemedicine services improve my healthcare efficiency. | |
| PE4 | 5.41 | 1.262 | Telemedicine services increase my capability to manage my health more quickly. | |
| PE5 | 5.62 | 1.178 | Telemedicine would increase my chances of meeting my healthcare needs. | |
| Effort Expectancy (EE) [ | EE1 | 5.75 | 1.238 | Learning to use telemedicine is effortless for me. |
| EE2 | 5.29 | 1.461 | My interaction with telemedicine is understandable. | |
| EE3 | 5.60 | 1.336 | I find telemedicine platforms easy to use. | |
| EE4 | 5.69 | 1.379 | It is simple to be skillful at using telemedicine services. | |
| Facilitating Conditions (FC) [ | FC1 | 6.22 | 1.184 | I have the essential resources to use telemedicine. |
| FC2 | 5.89 | 1.276 | I have the necessary knowledge to use telemedicine. | |
| FC3 | 6.07 | 1.052 | The telemedicine service I have used can run on both computer and mobile phone without modifications. | |
| Price Value (PV) [ | PV1 | 5.00 | 1.583 | The fees or prices for telemedicine services (e.g., doctor’s fees) are reasonable. |
| PV2 | 5.12 | 1.574 | The fees for telemedicine services are affordable. | |
| PV3 | 4.83 | 1.630 | Telemedicine services are good value for the money. | |
| Contamination Avoidance (CA) [ | CA1 | 5.81 | 1.293 | Telemedicine allows me to avoid a physical visit to the doctor’s office. |
| CA2 | 6.15 | .977 | Telemedicine allows me to avoid physical contact with other patients. | |
| CA3 | 5.96 | 1.140 | Telemedicine allows me to avoid physical contact with the doctor. | |
| CA4 | 6.24 | 1.086 | Telemedicine allows me to avoid touching infected objects (e.g., door handles, chairs) | |
| Functionality (FUNC) [ | FUNC2 | 5.34 | 1.337 | The sign-up and sign-in processes of the telemedicine service are quick and simple. |
| FUNC3 | 5.12 | 1.403 | The telemedicine service I have used has relevant help buttons/FAQs. | |
| FUNC4 | 5.40 | 1.215 | The menu labels, icons, and instructions of the telemedicine service I have used are straightforward. | |
| FUNC5 | 5.58 | 1.148 | The telemedicine service allows me to navigate or move from one section to another easily. | |
| Information Quality (IQ) [ | IQ1 | 5.48 | 1.167 | It is effortless to find and understand information on the telemedicine platform. |
| IQ3 | 5.58 | 1.114 | The information available on telemedicine platforms is orderly and easy to read. | |
| IQ4 | 5.49 | 1.137 | Information provided by the telemedicine platform is correct and relevant. | |
| IQ5 | 5.50 | 1.162 | Information provided by the telemedicine platform is timely and updated. | |
| Engagement (ENG) [ | ENG1 | 5.63 | 1.254 | Telemedicine technology is engaging. |
| ENG2 | 5.51 | 1.237 | Telemedicine technology is interesting. | |
| ENG4 | 5.63 | 1.316 | The telemedicine platform is responsive and holds my attention. | |
| Satisfaction (SAT) [ | SAT2 | 5.44 | 1.217 | I am pleased with my experience with telemedicine service. |
| SAT3 | 5.34 | 1.313 | The experience of telemedicine service is exactly what I needed. | |
| SAT4 | 5.44 | 1.276 | I think I did the right thing when I decided to use the telemedicine service. | |
| SAT5 | 5.60 | 1.248 | I like using telemedicine services. | |
| Continuous Usage Intention (CUI) [ | CUI1 | 5.67 | 1.163 | I intend to continue using telemedicine services. |
| CUI4 | 5.68 | 1.149 | I will recommend others to use telemedicine platforms. | |
| CUI5 | 5.39 | 1.291 | I plan to continue to use telemedicine services frequently. |
Figure 2Participants’ inclusion flowchart.
Demographic statistics (n = 312).
| Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Female | 80 | 25.64 |
| Male | 232 | 74.35 |
| Age group (mean = 26.28, std. deviation = 5.53) | ||
| Below 20 | 15 | 4.80 |
| 21–25 | 138 | 44.23 |
| 26–30 | 105 | 33.65 |
| 31–35 | 26 | 8.33 |
| 36–40 | 18 | 5.76 |
| Above 40 | 10 | 3.20 |
| Occupation | ||
| Private employee | 19 | 6.1 |
| Government employee | 19 | 6.1 |
| Student | 173 | 55.4 |
| Business | 2 | 0.6 |
| Teacher | 58 | 18.6 |
| Unemployed | 17 | 5.4 |
| Other | 24 | 7.7 |
| Place of residence | ||
| Urban | 156 | 50.0 |
| Suburban | 64 | 20.5 |
| Rural | 92 | 29.48 |
| How often did you use telemedicine services over the last six months? (mean = 2.39, std. deviation = 1.31) | ||
| Once | 111 | 35.6 |
| Twice | 78 | 25.0 |
| Three times | 16 | 5.1 |
| Many times | 107 | 34.3 |
Figure 3Measurement model.
Reliability and validity.
| Constructs | Estimate | CR | AVE | MSV | MaxR(H) | Alpha Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PE | PE5 | 0.788 | 0.841 | 0.572 | 0.424 | 0.852 | 0.840 |
| PE4 | 0.829 | ||||||
| PE3 | 0.725 | ||||||
| PE2 | 0.673 | ||||||
| EE | EE4 | 0.756 | 0.855 | 0.596 | 0.396 | 0.861 | 0.851 |
| EE3 | 0.837 | ||||||
| EE2 | 0.749 | ||||||
| EE1 | 0.742 | ||||||
| FC | FC3 | 0.801 | 0.831 | 0.622 | 0.340 | 0.841 | 0.824 |
| FC2 | 0.720 | ||||||
| FC1 | 0.841 | ||||||
| PV | PV3 | 0.686 | 0.829 | 0.622 | 0.324 | 0.896 | 0.780 |
| PV2 | 0.932 | ||||||
| PV1 | 0.725 | ||||||
| CA | CA4 | 0.663 | 0.833 | 0.556 | 0.203 | 0.840 | 0.828 |
| CA3 | 0.732 | ||||||
| CA2 | 0.782 | ||||||
| CA1 | 0.798 | ||||||
| ENG | ENG4 | 0.570 | 0.808 | 0.591 | 0.421 | 0.852 | 0.782 |
| ENG2 | 0.841 | ||||||
| ENG1 | 0.860 | ||||||
| FUNC | FUNC2 | 0.744 | 0.846 | 0.580 | 0.436 | 0.852 | 0.842 |
| FUNC3 | 0.697 | ||||||
| FUNC4 | 0.806 | ||||||
| FUNC5 | 0.794 | ||||||
| IQ | IQ1 | 0.726 | 0.862 | 0.611 | 0.449 | 0.867 | 0.848 |
| IQ3 | 0.802 | ||||||
| IQ4 | 0.829 | ||||||
| IQ5 | 0.765 | ||||||
| SAT | SAT2 | 0.765 | 0.884 | 0.657 | 0.420 | 0.887 | 0.884 |
| SAT3 | 0.845 | ||||||
| SAT4 | 0.821 | ||||||
| SAT5 | 0.809 | ||||||
| CUI | CUI1 | 0.848 | 0.879 | 0.708 | 0.449 | 0.880 | 0.877 |
| CUI4 | 0.855 | ||||||
| CUI5 | 0.821 |
Discriminant validity.
| SAT | PE | EE | FC | PV | CA | ENG | FUNC | IQ | CUI | VIF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAT |
| 1.67 | |||||||||
| PE | 0.515 |
| 1.74 | ||||||||
| EE | 0.412 | 0.629 |
| 1.93 | |||||||
| FC | 0.255 | 0.470 | 0.583 |
| 1.48 | ||||||
| PV | 0.363 | 0.408 | 0.509 | 0.324 |
| 1.49 | |||||
| CA | 0.370 | 0.403 | 0.399 | 0.451 | 0.292 |
| 1.32 | ||||
| ENG | 0.547 | 0.482 | 0.526 | 0.306 | 0.421 | 0.398 |
| 1.87 | |||
| FUNC | 0.550 | 0.499 | 0.462 | 0.305 | 0.456 | 0.367 | 0.649 |
| 1.80 | ||
| IQ | 0.648 | 0.620 | 0.582 | 0.428 | 0.569 | 0.408 | 0.618 | 0.660 |
| 2.34 | |
| CUI | 0.636 | 0.651 | 0.466 | 0.324 | 0.357 | 0.446 | 0.553 | 0.514 | 0.670 |
|
Note: Bold diagonal values are the square roots of AVEs.
Figure 4Structural model. Note: All mediating hypotheses, i.e., H10a (PE→ENG→CUI), H10b (EE→ENG→CUI), H11a (PE→SAT→CUI), and H11b (EE→SAT→CUI), except H11c (FC→SAT→CUI), are significant.
Model fit results.
| Indices | Recommended Value | The Obtained Value Measurement Model | The Obtained Value Structural Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| CMIN/df | <3 | 1.854 | 2.861 |
| CFI | ≥0.90 | 0.925 | 0.830 |
| GFI | ≥0.80 | 0.853 | 0.756 |
| AGFI | ≥0.80 | 0.822 | 0.717 |
| NFI | ≥0.90 | 0.853 | 0.762 |
| TLI | ≥0.90 | 0.914 | 0.813 |
| IFI | ≥0.90 | 0.926 | 0.831 |
| RMSEA | ≤0.08 | 0.052 | 0.077 |
Source: Data analysis results.
Hypothesis results.
| Hypothesized Paths | Estimate | SE. | CR. | P | Decision | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ---> | ENG | 0.271 | 0.063 | 3.325 | *** | Accept | |
| ---> | SAT | 0.227 | 0.073 | 2.855 | *** | Accept | |
| ---> | CUI | 0.366 | 0.079 | 4.479 | *** | Accept | |
| ---> | PE | 0.572 | 0.060 | 8.322 | *** | Accept | |
| ---> | ENG | 0.345 | 0.057 | 4.096 | *** | Accept | |
| ---> | SAT | −0.052 | 0.063 | −0.664 | n.s. | Reject | |
| ---> | CUI | −0.052 | 0.063 | −0.692 | n.s. | Reject | |
| ---> | SAT | −0.056 | 0.055 | −0.979 | n.s. | Reject | |
| ---> | CUI | −0.035 | 0.053 | −0.659 | n.s. | Reject | |
| ---> | CUI | −0.066 | 0.057 | −1.306 | n.s. | Reject | |
| ---> | PE | 0.237 | 0.076 | 3.924 | *** | Accept | |
| ---> | CUI | 0.138 | 0.070 | 2.389 | ** | Accept | |
| ---> | SAT | 0.187 | 0.050 | 3.169 | *** | Accept | |
| ---> | CUI | 0.037 | 0.049 | 0.675 | n.s. | Reject | |
| ---> | SAT | 0.422 | 0.069 | 6.348 | *** | Accept | |
| ---> | CUI | 0.293 | 0.071 | 4.543 | *** | Accept | |
| ---> | SAT | 0.217 | 0.089 | 2.877 | *** | Accept | |
| ---> | CUI | 0.129 | 0.086 | 1.857 | ** | Accept | |
| ---> | CUI | 0.234 | 0.075 | 3.307 | *** | Accept | |
|
|
| ||||||
| PE | 0.383 | ||||||
| ENG | 0.300 | ||||||
| SAT | 0.339 | ||||||
| CUI | 0.493 | ||||||
Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.05, and n.s. = not significant.
Bootstrapping results.
| Path | Indirect Effect | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.080 | 0.011 | 0.208 | *** | Mediated | |
| 0.489 | 0.337 | 0.701 | *** | Mediated | |
| 0.175 | 0.082 | 0.335 | *** | Mediated | |
| 0.433 | 0.286 | 0.604 | *** | Mediated | |
| −0.001 | −0.084 | 0.077 | n.s. | Not mediated |
Note: *** p < 0.001 and n.s. = not significant.