Exploring the Factors Affecting the Continued Usage Intention of IoT-Based Healthcare Wearable Devices Using the TAM Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. IoT-Based Wearable Healthcare Device
2.2. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
3. Theoretical Background, Research Hypotheses, and Model
3.1. The Personalization and the Continuous Intention to Use a IWHD
3.2. The Perceived Service Convenience and the Continuous Intention to Use IWHDs
3.3. The Interactivity and the Continuous Intention to Use IWHDs
3.4. Mediation Effect of Perceived Ease of Use on the Continuous Intention to Use IWHDs
3.5. Mediation Effect of Perceived Usefulness on the Continuous Intention to Use IWHDs
3.6. Mediation Effect of Virtual Community Immersion on the Continuous Intention to Use IWHDs
3.7. Sequential Mediating Effect
3.8. Moderation Role of Innovativeness
4. Empirical Analysis
4.1. Variables
4.2. Data Collection
4.3. Method of Analysis
4.4. Measurement Items
4.5. Reliability Assessment
4.6. Discriminant Validity
4.7. Structural Model and Hypotheses Tests
4.7.1. Direct Effects
4.7.2. Mediation Tests
4.7.3. Serial Mediation
4.7.4. Moderation Analysis
5. General Discussion
6. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Swanson, E.B. Information channel disposition and use. Decis. Sci. 1987, 18, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradhan, B.; Bhattacharyya, S.; Pal, K. IoT-Based applications in healthcare devices. J. Healthc. Eng. 2021, 2021, 6632599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Al Bassam, N.; Hussain, S.A.; Al Qaraghuli, A.; Khan, J.; Sumesh, E.P.; Lavanya, V. IoT based wearable device to monitor the signs of quarantined remote patients of COVID-19. Inform. Med. Unlocked 2021, 24, 100588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Terry, K. Mobile Polysensors Offer New Potential for Patient Monitoring. Medscape Medical News. 2014. Available online: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/828637 (accessed on 5 June 2022).
- Sigh, R.P.; Havaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Vaishya, R.; Ali, S. Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) for orthopaedic in COVID-19 pandemic: Roles, challenges, and applications. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2020, 11, 713–717. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, L.R.; Yang, S.M.; Lee, B.M. Study on the hospital health care service model. Adv. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2016, 133, 115–150. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, S.; Kelly, G.; Kernohan, W.G.; McCreight, B.; Nugent, C. Smart home technologies for health and social care support. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2008, 8, CD006412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piwek, L.; Ellis, D.A.; Andrews, S.; Joinson, A. The rise of consumer health wearables: Promises and barriers. PLoS Med. 2016, 13, e1001953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smuck, M.; Odonkor, C.A.; Wilt, J.K.; Schmidt, N.; Swiernik, M.A. The emerging clinical role of wearables: Factors for successful implementation in healthcare. NPJ Digit. Med. 2021, 4, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noah, B.; Keller, M.S.; Mosadeghi, S.; Stein, L.; Johl, S.; Delshad, S.; Tashjian, V.C.; Lew, D.; Kwan, J.T.; Jusufagic, A.; et al. Impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. NPJ Digit. Med. 2018, 1, 20172. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jerew, O.; Al Bassam, N. Delay tolerance and energy saving in wireless sensor networks with a mobile base station. Hindawi Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2019, 2019, 3929876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, B.; Lee, M.; Hwi Kim, M.; Jung Kim, H.; Yoo, H.; Kim, J.W. January. Infectious Disease Infection Index Information System. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 11–13 January 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Mukhopadhyay, S.C.; Suryadevara, N.K.; Nag, A. Wearable sensors for healthcare: Fabrication to application. Seonsors 2022, 22, 5137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okafor, K.C.; Achumba, I.E.; Gloria, A.C.; Ononiwu, G.C. Leveraging fog computing for scalable IoT datacenter using spine-leaf network topology. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2017, 2017, 2363240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, Y.; Wang, X. Modeling the intention to use machine translation for student translators: An extension of technology acceptance model. Comput. Educ. 2019, 133, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalyanaraman, S.; Sundar, S.S. The psychological appeal of personalized content in Web portals: Does customization affect attitudes and behavior? J. Commun. 2006, 56, 110–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peppers, D.; Rodgers, M. Enterprise One to One: Tools for Competing in the Interactive Age; Double Day: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Chellappa, R.K.; Sin, R.G. Personalization versus privacy: An empirical examination of the online consumer’s dilemma. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2005, 6, 181–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, K.Y.; Ho, S.Y. Web personalization as a persuasion strategy: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Inf. Syst. Res. 2005, 16, 271–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, S.; Yang, W.; Le Grange, J.M.L.; Wang, P.; Huang, W.; Ye, Z. Smart healthcare: Making medical care more intelligent. Glob. Health J. 2019, 3, 62–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varki, S.; Rust, R.T. Technology and optimal segment size. Mark. Lett. 1998, 9, 147–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyytinen, K.; Yoo, Y. Issues and challenges in ubiquitous computing. Commun. ACM 2002, 45, 63–65. [Google Scholar]
- Oliver, R.L. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Komiak, S.Y.; Benbasat, I. The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 941–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Light, M.; Maybury, M.T. Personalized multimedia information access. Commun. ACM 2002, 45, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, J.; Wu, W.L.; Liu, Z.H.; Mei, Y.J.; Cai, R.X.; Shen, P. Study the oxidative injury of yeast cells by NADH autofluorescence. Spectrochim. Acta A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2007, 67, 355–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray, R.; Caulier-Grice, J.; Mulgan, G. The Open Book of Social Innovation; National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Art: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Merikivi, J.; Mantymaki, M. Explaining the Continuous Use of Social Virtual Worlds: An Applied Theory of Planned Behavior Approach. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kotler, P.; Armstrong, G. Principles of Marketing, 14th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Essex, England, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Colwell, S.R.; Aung, M.; Kanetkar, V.; Holden, A.L. Toward a measure of service convenience: Multiple-item scale development and empirical test. J. Serv. Mark. 2008, 22, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, E.W.; Shugan, S.M. Repositioning for changing preferences: The case of beef versus poultry. J. Con. Res. 1991, 18, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Lee, J.; Han, K.; Lee, M. Businesses as buildings: Metrics for the architectural quality of internet businesses. Inf. Syst. Res. 2002, 13, 239–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Datta, S.K.; Bonnet, C.; Gyrard, A.; Ferreira da Costa, R.P.; Boudaoud, K. Applying Internet of Things for personalized healthcare in smart homes. In Proceedings of the 24th Wireless and Optical Communication Conference (WOCC), Taipei, Taiwan, 23–24 October 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, Z.; Zhang, X.; Ganchev, I.; O’Droma, M. A Personalized Middleware for Ubiquitous mHealth Services. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 14th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom), Beijing, China, 10–13 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Massot, B.; Baltenneck, N.; Gehin, C.; Dittmar, A.; McAdams, E. EmoSense: An ambulatory device for the assessment of ANS activity—Application in the objective evaluation of stress with the blind. IEEE Sens. J. 2012, 12, 543–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuehlke, P.; Li, J.; Talaei-Khoei, A.; Ray, P. A Functional Specification for Mobile eHealth (mHealth) Systems. In Proceedings of the 2009 11th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom), Sydney, NSW, Australia, 16–18 December 2009. [Google Scholar]
- McMillan, S.J.; Hwang, J. Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. J. Advert. 2002, 31, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. J. Leis. Res. 1990, 24, 93–94. [Google Scholar]
- Alba, J.; Lynch, J.; Weitz, B.; Janiszewski, C.; Lutz, R.; Sawyer, A.; Wood, S. Interactive home shopping: Consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces. J. Mark. 1997, 61, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ha, L.; James, E.L. Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 1998, 42, 457–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulrike, P.; Raj, A.; Panayiotis, Z. Age differences in online social networking—A study of user profiles and the social capital divide among teenagers and older users in MySpace. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2009, 25, 643–654. [Google Scholar]
- Danaher, T.S.; Gallan, A.S. Service research in health care. J. Serv. Res. 2016, 19, 433–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canhoto, A.I.; Arp, S. Exploring the factors that support adoption and sustained use of health and fitness wearables. J. Mark. Manag. 2017, 33, 32–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baxter, G.D.; Sommerville, I. Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering. Interact. Comput. 2011, 23, 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barile, S.; Polese, F. Linking the viable system and many-to-many network approaches to service-dominant logic and service science. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2010, 2, 23–42. [Google Scholar]
- Windasari, N.A.; Lin, F.R.; Kato-Lin, Y.C. Continued use of wearable fitness technology: A value co-creation perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 57, 102292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McColl-Kennedy, J.R.; Vargo, S.L.; Danaher, T.S.; Sweeney, J.C. Health care customer value cocreation practice styles. J. Serv. Res. 2012, 15, 370–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.D.; Yoo, Y. It’s all about attitude: Revisiting the technology acceptance model. Decis. Support Syst. 2004, 38, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.D.; Gillenson, M.L.; Sherrell, D.L. Enticing online consumers: An extended technology acceptance perspective. Inf. Manag. 2002, 39, 705–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, K. Consumer technology traits in determining mobile shopping adoption: An application of the extended theory of planned behavior. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2012, 19, 484–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vijayasarathy, L.R. Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: The case for an augmented technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 2004, 41, 747–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. In Textbooks Collection. Book 3; Global Text Project; University of South Florida: Tampa, FL, USA, 2012; Available online: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbook/3 (accessed on 10 September 2022).
- Park, Y.; Chen, J.V. Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of smartphone. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2007, 107, 1349–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, E.; Kim, K.J. User acceptance of long-term evolution (LTE) services: An application of extended technology acceptance model. Program Electron. Lib. Info. Syst. 2013, 47, 188–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.Y.; Park, J.; Morrison, A.M. A model of traveler acceptance of mobile technology. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2008, 10, 393–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A.; Premkumar, G. Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 229–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernback, J. The individual within the collective: Virtual ideology and the realization of collective principles. In Virtual Culture; Sage: London, UK, 1997; pp. 36–54. [Google Scholar]
- Algesheimer, R.; Dholakia, U.M.; Herrmann, A. The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagel, J. Net gain: Expanding markets through virtual communities. J. Interact. Mark. 1999, 13, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelman, H.C. Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. J. Confl. Resolut. 1958, 2, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.P.; Bhattacherjee, A. Extending technology usage models to interactive hedonic technologies: A theoretical model and empirical test. Inf. Syst. J. 2010, 20, 163–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Foxwall, G.R.; Goldsmith, R.E. Consumer innovativeness: Creativity, novelty-seeking, and cognitive style. Res. Consum. Behav. 1988, 3, 79–113. [Google Scholar]
- Ogawa, S.; Pongtanalert, K. Exploring characteristics and motives of consumer innovators: Community innovators vs. independent innovators. Res. Technol. Manag. 2013, 56, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasution, R.A.; Garnida, N. A Review of the Three Streams of Consumer Innovativeness. In Proceedings of the PICMET’10 Technology Management for Global Economic Growth, Phuket, Thailand, 18–22 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Thong, J.Y.L.; Hong, S.J.; Tam, K.Y. The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2006, 64, 799–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, H.T.; Pai, P. Positive and negative aspects of online community cultivation: Implications for online stores’ relationship management. Inf. Manag. 2012, 49, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ailawadi, K.; Neslin, S.A.; Gedenk, K. Pursuing the Value-Conscious Consumer: Store Brands Versus National Brand Promotions. J. Mark. 2001, 65, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336. [Google Scholar]
- Reinartz, W.; Krafft, M.; Hoyer, W.D. The customer relationship management process: Its measurement and impact on performance. J. Mark. Res. 2004, 41, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv. Int. Mark. 2009, 20, 277–319. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrout, P.E.; Bolger, N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 422–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M.A. Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017; pp. 104–236. [Google Scholar]
- Chan, W. Comparing indirect effects in SEM: A sequential model fitting method using covariance-equivalent specifications. Struct. Equ. Model. 2007, 14, 326–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, A.F.; Rockwood, N.J. Conditional process analysis: Concepts, computation, and advances in the modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms. Am. Behav. Sci. 2019, 64, 19–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Rauschnabel, P.A.; Brem, A.; Ivens, B.S. Who will buy smart glasses? Empirical results of two pre-market-entry studies on the role of personality in individual awareness and intended adoption of google glass wearables. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 49, 635–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, L.; Fan, A.; Mattila, A. Wearable technology in service delivery processes: The gender-moderated technology objectification effect. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 51, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumgartner, H.; Steenkamp, J.B. Exploratory consumer buying behavior: Conceptualization and measurement. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1996, 13, 121–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eun Park, J.; Yu, J.; Xin Zhou, J. Consumer innovativeness and shopping styles. J. Con. Mark. 2010, 27, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergmann, J.H.M.; McGregor, A.H. Body-worn sensor design: What do patients and clinicians want? J. Biomed. Eng. 2011, 39, 2299–2312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kekade, S.; Hseieh, C.H.; Islam, M.M.; Atique, S.; Mohammed Khalfan, A.; Li, Y.C.; Abdul, S.S. The usefulness and actual use of wearable devices among the elderly population. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2018, 153, 137–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, B.R.; Park, J.Y.; Chung, K.; Choi, I.Y. Influential factors of smart health users according to usage experience and intention to use. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2014, 79, 2671–2683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Composition Concept | Criteria | Researchers |
---|---|---|
Personalization | IoT-based healthcare wearable devices know what I need. | Kalyanaraman and Sundar [19] |
IoT-based healthcare wearable devices know what I like. | ||
IoT-based healthcare wearable devices provide content that suit my interests. | ||
Service convenience | It is convenient to use IoT-based wearable healthcare devices. | Colwell et al. [36] |
The menu design of IoT-based wearable healthcare devices is simple. | ||
I can use IoT-based wearable healthcare devices immediately when I want to. | ||
Interactivity | IoT-based wearable healthcare devices can share information with multiple people. | Ulrike, Raj, and Panayiotis [45] |
Information exchanges between each other can be frequent in IoT-based wearable healthcare devices. | ||
The community in IoT-based wearable healthcare devices is active | ||
A IoT-based healthcare wearable device is a product that I need. | ||
Perceived ease of use | It is convenient for me to use IoT-based healthcare wearable devices. The menu configuration of IoT-based healthcare wearable devices is simple. I can use IoT-based healthcare wearable devices immediately when I want. | Davis [11] Vijayasarathy [55] |
Perceived usefulness | Using a healthcare wearable device is useful in everyday life. | Thong, Hong, and Tam [71] |
Using healthcare wearable devices can increase the effectiveness of my work. | ||
Using a healthcare wearable device helps you accomplish my work goals faster. | ||
Virtual community immersion | I have a sense of belonging to the community related to wearable healthcare devices. | Tsai and Pai [72] |
I have a psychological attachment to the community related to wearable healthcare devices. | ||
I exchange views with other members of the community with wearable healthcare devices. | ||
I participate in wearable healthcare device community activities. | ||
Intention of continued use | I will regularly use IoT-based healthcare wearable devices in the future. | Bhattacherjee [27] |
I will recommend IoT-based healthcare wearable devices to people around me. | ||
I will continue to use short video IoT-based healthcare wearable devices. | ||
Innovativeness | I’m used to using new products and tend to learn how to use them quickly. I am curious about new products or services such as IoT-based healthcare wearable devices, so I can’t wait to use them. I tend to want to know the latest information on new media or technologies. I like to tell people around me about new media or technologies. | Ailawadi et al. [73] |
Latent Variables | Factor Loadings | Cronbach’s Alpha | rho_A | Composite Reliability | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Personalization | 0.852 | 0.884 | 0.887 | 0.929 | 0.813 |
0.921 | |||||
0.930 | |||||
Service Convenience | 0.940 | 0.895 | 0.899 | 0.935 | 0.828 |
0.940 | |||||
0.847 | |||||
Interactivity | 0.900 | 0.891 | 0.892 | 0.932 | 0.822 |
0.912 | |||||
0.907 | |||||
Perceived Usefulness | 0.939 | 0.929 | 0.930 | 0.955 | 0.876 |
0.954 | |||||
0.914 | |||||
Community Immersion | 0.888 | 0.923 | 0.925 | 0.946 | 0.813 |
0.897 | |||||
0.930 | |||||
0.892 | |||||
Continuous Use Intention | 0.894 | 0.911 | 0.911 | 0.944 | 0.849 |
0.940 | |||||
0.929 |
PI | SC | INT | PU | CI | CUI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PI | 0.902 | |||||
SC | 0.732 | 0.910 | ||||
INT | 0.733 | 0.775 | 0.906 | |||
PU | 0.751 | 0.826 | 0.802 | 0.936 | ||
CI | 0.739 | 0.783 | 0.791 | 0.758 | 0.902 | |
CUI | 0.765 | 0.776 | 0.794 | 0.798 | 0.832 | 0.921 |
Hypotheses | Coefficient | Std. Error | T-Statistics | p-Value | Adoption |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1: PL → CUI | 0.157 | 0.068 | 2.297 | 0.022 | Supported |
H2: SC → CUI | 0.066 | 0.066 | 1.022 | 0.317 | Unsupported |
H3: INT → CUI | 0.149 | 0.077 | 1.949 | 0.052 | Unsupported |
Hypotheses | Std. Beta | Std. Error | T-Statistics | 95% Boot CI BC | Decision | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LL | UL | |||||
PL → PEU → CUI | 0.029 | 0.020 | 1.423 | −0.001 | 0.078 | Unsupported |
SC → PEU → CUI | 0.043 | 0.025 | 1.679 | −0.002 | 0.101 | Unsupported |
INT → PEU → CUI | 0.046 | 0.029 | 0.590 | −0.001 | 0.110 | Unsupported |
PL → PU → CUI | 0.042 | 0.023 | 1.833 | 0.007 | 0.098 | Supported |
SC → PU → CUI | 0.012 | 0.021 | 0.590 | −0.019 | 0.061 | Unsupported |
INT → PU → CUI | 0.069 | 0.027 | 2.575 | 0.021 | 0.124 | Supported |
PL → CI → CUI | 0.100 | 0.033 | 3.013 | 0.036 | 0.161 | Supported |
SC → CI → CUI | −0.040 | 0.037 | 1.075 | −0.114 | 0.030 | Unsupported |
INT → CI → CUI | 0.157 | 0.044 | 3.603 | 0.077 | 0.251 | Supported |
Indirect Path | Std. Beta | Direct Path | PC | Mediation Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
PL → PU → CUI | 0.042 | PL → CUI | 0.157 | Partially Mediated |
INT → PU → CUI H6-1: PL → CI → CUI | 0.069 0.100 | INT → CUI PL → CUI | not significant 0.157 | Fully Mediated Partially Mediated |
INT → CI → CUI | 0.157 | INT → CUI | not significant | Fully Mediated |
Serial Mediation Path Analyses | Path Coefficient | (Boot) S.E. | T-Statistics | p-Values | LLCI | ULCI | Decision |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PL → PEU → PU → CUI | 0.021 | 0.011 | 1.977 | 0.049 | 0.007 | 0.051 | Supported |
SC → PEU → PU → CUI | 0.031 | 0.015 | 2.085 | 0.038 | 0.009 | 0.065 | Supported |
INT → PEU → PU → CUI | 0.033 | 0.014 | 2.444 | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.074 | Supported |
PL → PEU → CI → CUI | 0.032 | 0.013 | 2.418 | 0.016 | 0.013 | 0.064 | Supported |
SC → PEU → CI → CUI | 0.047 | 0.020 | 2.334 | 0.020 | 0.015 | 0.096 | Supported |
INT → PEU → CI → CUI | 0.051 | 0.017 | 2.926 | 0.004 | 0.024 | 0.092 | Supported |
Parameters | Dependent | R2 | F | p | Coef | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | CUI | 0.614 | 84.414 | 0.000 | 3.149 | 0.761 | 4.140 | 1.647 | 4.652 |
PL | 0.176 | 0.196 | 0.908 | −0.209 | 0.564 | ||||
IN | −0.817 | 0.240 | −3.420 | −1.289 | −0.345 | ||||
PL * IN | 0.204 | 0.066 | 3.062 | 0.072 | 0.335 | ||||
Conditional Effect from X to Y at Values of Moderator | |||||||||
PL | Effect | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | ||||
1.619 | 0.507 | 0.101 | 5.032 | 0.308 | 0.706 | ||||
2.419 | 0.670 | 0.070 | 9.644 | 0.533 | 0.807 | ||||
3.219 | 0.833 | 0.072 | 11.605 | 0.691 | 0.974 |
Parameters | Dependent | R2 | F | p | Coef | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | CUI | 0.587 | 75.180 | 0.000 | 4.369 | 0.910 | 4.799 | 2.571 | 6.166 |
SC | −0.017 | 0.235 | −0.073 | −0.480 | 0.446 | ||||
IN | −1.114 | 0.294 | −3.792 | −1.694 | −0.534 | ||||
SC * IN | 0.222 | 0.079 | 2.817 | 0.066 | 0.377 | ||||
Conditional Effect from X to Y at Values of Moderator | |||||||||
SC | Effect | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | ||||
1.619 | 0.342 | 0.112 | 2.949 | 0.113 | 0.570 | ||||
2.419 | 0.519 | 0.070 | 7.451 | 0.381 | 0.656 | ||||
3.219 | 0.696 | 0.065 | 10.745 | 0.558 | 0.824 |
Parameters | Dependent | R2 | F | p | Coef | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | CUI | 0.668 | 106.430 | 0.000 | 2.853 | 0.777 | 3.670 | 1.318 | 4.388 |
INT | 0.348 | 0.209 | 1.667 | −0.064 | 0.760 | ||||
IN | −0.752 | 0.258 | −2.916 | −1.261 | −0.243 | ||||
INT * IN | 0.150 | 0.072 | 2.053 | 0.006 | 0.293 | ||||
Conditional Effect from X to Y at Values of Moderator | |||||||||
SC | Effect | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | ||||
1.619 | 0.590 | 0.100 | 5.882 | 0.392 | 0.790 | ||||
2.419 | 0.709 | 0.062 | 11.528 | 0.588 | 0.831 | ||||
3.219 | 0.829 | 0.066 | 12.630 | 0.699 | 0.959 |
Examples of IoT Healthcare-Based Applications | Association with the Research Hypothesis |
---|---|
Glucose Monitoring: The IoT glucose monitoring device is an IoT device that can notify patients when the level is higher than normal by monitoring blood sugar levels without undergoing an invasive procedure. Using these monitoring devices, doctors can remotely track the patient’s condition. | Personalization, service convenience → perceived ease of use → perceived usefulness → use intention |
Connected Inhalers: The IoMT-connected inhaler tracks the patient’s data and helps them live a normal life, confirming that the respiratory patient is using the device in the right way. For example, the device is connected to a smartphone so that patients do not leave their inhalers at home. | Interactivity → perceived ease of use → perceived usefulness/virtual community immersion → use intention |
Remote patient monitoring device: Remote patient monitoring is a device that can monitor heart rate, blood pressure, temperature, glucose level, and oxygen level. Since this can automatically collect health measurements the patient does not need to collect them directly. | Personalization, service convenience, interactivity → perceived ease of use → perceived usefulness/virtual community immersion → use intention |
Hand hygiene monitoring: Hand hygiene monitoring is an IoT device that reminds people to sanitize their hands when entering a hospital room. Compliance with hand hygiene was important during the coronavirus pandemic. The IoT device, which detects the hygiene component of the hand, causes the service provider to sound an alarm to wash the hand when it comes close to the patient’s bed. | Personalization, service convenience → perceived ease of use → perceived usefulness → use intention |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kang, M.J.; Hwang, Y.C. Exploring the Factors Affecting the Continued Usage Intention of IoT-Based Healthcare Wearable Devices Using the TAM Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12492. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912492
Kang MJ, Hwang YC. Exploring the Factors Affecting the Continued Usage Intention of IoT-Based Healthcare Wearable Devices Using the TAM Model. Sustainability. 2022; 14(19):12492. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912492
Chicago/Turabian StyleKang, Min Jung, and Yong Cheol Hwang. 2022. "Exploring the Factors Affecting the Continued Usage Intention of IoT-Based Healthcare Wearable Devices Using the TAM Model" Sustainability 14, no. 19: 12492. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912492
APA StyleKang, M. J., & Hwang, Y. C. (2022). Exploring the Factors Affecting the Continued Usage Intention of IoT-Based Healthcare Wearable Devices Using the TAM Model. Sustainability, 14(19), 12492. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912492