User Acceptance of Smart Watch for Medical Purposes: An Empirical Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Research effort is interesting. Smart watch technology and acceptance model are consistently presented. Specifically adopted model is well presented. Data used in the paper are concrete. However, literature review is limited thus more research efforts should be examined. Section 5 and 6 are partialy corelated. Specifically, discussion on the results should be presented in a separate section other than conclusion section.

Author Response

The authors are really very grateful to the feedback and comments raised by the reviewer which really assist them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enable us to update many parts of the paper as shown by the responses to each comment. Our responses are mentioned below under each comment raised by the reviewer and it is written in (Times New Roman, red color). Besides, all the updated parts in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow color in order to be easily tracked by the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction

TAM is a model that defines the mechanism by which factors influencing the increase in technology acceptance intention led to technology use. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the use of smart watches in medical fields or the factors that are not being used properly. Only then can the factors for the medical purpose smart watch be derived and the background of the research will be clearly presented.

Table 1

• What is the meaning of ‘Research Setting’ and ‘Study type’ in Table 1?
• What is the difference between survey (or online survey) and Questionnaire in 'Method' of Table 1?
• And what kind of analyzes is ‘nine steps of analysis’ a research method?
• Shouldn't the parentheses be deleted in the theory of [22] and [23] of Table 1?.

Chapter 3

• Table 5 shows that there are Items for each Constructs, but there seems to be no description of the Items. In Chapter 3, not only the definition of Constructs and the hypotheses between Constructs are defined, but also the Items constituting Constructs must be presented in detail.
• 1. Content Richness and 3.1 TAM model overlap. It is necessary to adjust the number throughout the manuscript.
• 1 TAM model defined as the relationship between Perceived usefulness (PU)/Perceived ease of use (PEOU) and the adoption of SW (ASW). However, it seems that 'Figure 1. Research model' is the TAM model of smart Watch for medical purpose.
• I think Chapter 3 should be composed so that the description of the entire model comes out, and then the descriptions of the Constructs constituting the TAM model and the items constituting the Constructs.
• Among the proposed constructs, what construct was added because it is a smart watch for medical purpose? In other words, what is the difference from another TAM model?
• Do Perceived usefulness (PU) and Perceived ease of use (PEOU) not affect Users’ satisfaction (US)?

Author Response

The authors are really very grateful to the feedback and comments raised by the reviewer which really assist them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enable us to update many parts of the paper as shown by the responses to each comment. Our responses are mentioned below under each comment raised by the reviewer and it is written in (Times New Roman, red color). Besides, all the updated parts in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow color in order to be easily tracked by the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors try to merge the characteristics of health service on the Technology Acceptance Model. However, in SEM analysis, authors should convince the readers about the soundness of the theoretical model they made. In this manuscript, authors did not fully explain the theoretical background of the modification they made. 

For example, authors insisted that user satisfaction is important in the adoption of SW. However, satisfaction can only be recognized after the adoption. The suggested references also support that satisfaction is related to the continuous usage, not the adoption (see [43]).

Also, the authors' idea and the reference is not relevant. Authors' insisted that satisfaction is important in the adoption process, but the references that authors cited did not support authors' idea. I think that this kind of citation is a serious ethical problem.  

Another concern is that there are so many studies on smart watches using TAM. I cannot see any new finding in this manuscript except the study location. 

My suggestion is to rebuild the research model based on the sound theoretical background. Venkatesh and Davis (2000) can be a good starting point. 

Author Response

The authors are really very grateful to the feedback and comments raised by the reviewer which really assist them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enable us to update many parts of the paper as shown by the responses to each comment. Our responses are mentioned below under each comment raised by the reviewer and it is written in (Times New Roman, red color). Besides, all the updated parts in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow color in order to be easily tracked by the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please refer to the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors are really very grateful to the feedback and comments raised by the reviewer which really assist them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enable us to update many parts of the paper as shown by the responses to each comment. Our responses are mentioned below under each comment raised by the reviewer and it is written in (Times New Roman, red color). Besides, all the updated parts in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow color in order to be easily tracked by the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I believe that this study is unique and valuable. Among the various SW studies, only this study has focused on the adoption of SW from the healthcare workers' perspective.

In this regard, I think that the change of satisfaction is little bit meaningless. I agree that the relationship between the satisfaction of healthcare workers and adoption of SW seems to be interesting. However, current manuscript lacks the theoretical background where the satisfaction came from and how one can increase the satisfaction for the adoption. 

  My suggestion is to drop the hypothesis 6 and 9, and focus more on the decision process by professionals. Most of literatures and discussion is based on the plain consumers, but, I think, the true value of the manuscript lies on the unique sample, the healthcare professionals. 

 Considering that TAM was originally developed for the professional decision makers, it could be a wise decision to use TAM in this manuscript. 

Author Response

The authors are really very grateful to the feedback and comments raised by the reviewer which really assist them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enable us to update many parts of the paper as shown by the responses to each comment. Our responses are mentioned below under each comment raised by the reviewer and it is written in (Times New Roman, red color). Besides, all the updated parts in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow color in order to be easily tracked by the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The corrections in the manuscript are not reflected in Figure 1.

Author Response

The authors are really very grateful to the feedback and comments raised by the reviewer which really assist them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enable us to update many parts of the paper as shown by the responses to each comment. Our responses are mentioned below under each comment raised by the reviewer and it is written in (Times New Roman, red color). Besides, all the updated parts in the manuscript were highlighted in green color (for 3^rd round) in order to be easily tracked by the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the previous review, I insisted that the jewel of this manuscript lies on the sample. However, the revised one has not fully covered its' meaning in the discussion. 

Also, although the result is interesting, there is no persuasive explanation why this study is important. Considering that there are lots of SW studies using TAM, this study should find a way to promote the finding and explain the result based on it. 

Author Response

The authors are really very grateful to the feedback and comments raised by the reviewer which really assist them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enable us to update many parts of the paper as shown by the responses to each comment. Our responses are mentioned below under each comment raised by the reviewer and it is written in (Times New Roman, red color). Besides, all the updated parts in the manuscript were highlighted in green color (for the 3^rd round) in order to be easily tracked by the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf