Exploring the Factors Affecting the Continued Usage Intention of IoT-Based Healthcare Wearable Devices Using the TAM Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The hypothesis given in the paper is not well supported by the experimental results. The dataset used is very small and does not contain different groups of participants. Thus, the hypothesis cannot be generalized based on the experimental study. More detailed experiments and data collection are required for significant contribution.
Author Response
To the reviewer
I'm sorry that I couldn't analyze it because I received more data.
However, I think this data is meaningful because we only surveyed consumers who actually use IOT-based wearable devices.
In addition, pls analysis can generalize to 163 data analysis today, so I think the analysis results are highly reliable. If we have more opportunities in the future, we will analyze them through a lot of data. Please give me a good evaluation.
Reviewer 2 Report
A. Strengths and Comments
1. This subject seems very interesting to researchers in IoT data-offloading and dynamic service provisioning factors in large-scale health compute systems.
2. The use of the TAM framework is good for policy formulation in the health sector.
3. The paper title is very suitable and ties with the content of the work in context.
4. The paper is well-written with an exact declaration of objectives and scope in the abstract and introductory sections respectively. The introductory section gave the real essence of technology adaptation in wearable health provisioning.
5. Section 1 introduction provides a good, generalized background of the topic.
6. The purported significance of the article is explicitly stated and justified by the sound statistical details though without mathematical backgrounds focusing on optimization dynamics.
7. This paper clearly showed a satisfactory survey of TAM
B. Issues and Weaknesses
1. The main thrust of the paper is well highlighted but how do their TAM observations compare with existing works in related fields
2. The gaps in the literature are vague (if any).
4. There is no clear literature review section, making most claims by the authors to be largely speculative. The authors may relate and include these references in the literature review Sections.
- Towards Complex Dynamic Fog Network Orchestration Using Embedded Neural Switch”, In International Journal of Computers and Applications, (IJCA) SI- Internet of Everything, Networks, Application, and Computing Systems. Published by Taylor & Francis, United Kingdom. Print ISSN: 1206-212X Online ISSN: 1925-7074. 2018, Vol.40 (4), Pp.1-18 DOI: 10.1080/1206212X.2018.1517440. This work will add more value to the Fog entities interaction model as depicted in Figure 1. The views offered in the paper sought to create an intelligent Software Defined Artificial Neural Network (SD-ANN) that could improve QoS requirements in IoT Fog computing networks. The arguments in the paper are valid and should be cited accordingly in the literature Section.
- “Leveraging Fog Computing For Scalable IoT Datacenter Using Spine-Leaf Network Topology”, Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Vol.2017, Article ID 2363240, Pp.1-11. The perspective offered in this paper explained how low-latency and bandwidth-intensive applications can transfer data to the cloud (and then back to the edge application) without impacting QoS performance. This will be relevant in strengthening the arguments for IoT Fog computing in Section I, especially in the areas of latency reduction and congestion management in a highly distributed and multilayer virtualized IoT data center environment.
- Dynamic Reliability Modelling of Cyber-Physical Edge Computing Network”, In International Journal of Computers and Applications, (IJCA), SI- Sustainable Computing for Intelligent Systems, United Kingdom. Print ISSN: 1206-212X Online ISSN: 1925-7074. 2019, Pp. 1-10. Taylor & Francis. DOI: 10.1080/1206212X.2019.1600830. The perspective offered in this paper explained how Dynamic Reliability Modelling of Cyber-Physical Edge Computing Network can contribute to low-latency bandwidth-intensive applications to transfer data to the cloud (and then back to the edge application) without impacting QoS performance
5. The authors should discuss how their proposed schemes could be applied in Big Data streaming of healthcare data streams. Discuss another application context.
6. From Figure 1, dynamic service provisioning can be hijacked by various attack vectors. How does this work address the issues of security vulnerabilities in IoT-based wearables?
7. A good review should look at novel technological paradigms such as the Fog of Everything (FoE) paradigm, its integration with IoT/Edge computing, and cloud support. For QoS review, efforts should be made to look at the main building blocks and services of the corresponding technological platform and protocol stack.
8. The references are rather old, and some are not very relevant
9. The use of IoT and IOT appears very inconsistent. Please revise to “IoT”.
10. How persuasive can the investigated IoT-Based Wearable Healthcare Devices be in a developing country.
11. What are the elements of the TAM Model? How relevant is this model relative to other existing models?
12. Authors failed to discuss threats to validity, optimality, and complexity metrics analysis considering the hypothetical validations.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
To the reviewer
Thank you for letting me know the advantages and complements of this paper.
First of all, I supplemented this paper as follows. Please give me a good result on this paper.
1. We explained more about the TAM in detail and how it is meaningful in this paper.
2. The theoretical explanation of this paper was supplemented in the theoretical background.
4. We supplemented the theoretical background by referring to the paper (leveraging Fog Computing For Scalable IoT Datacenter Using Spine-Leaf Network Topology", Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Vol.2017, Artic ID 2363240, Pp.1-11).
5. In the Implications section, we wrote about how the results of this study apply to big data within the healthcare data stem.
6. The complementarity in IOT-based wearables remains a future research project.
7. We supplemented FOE paradigm contents with IOT theoretical background.
8. I supplemented the references and tried to find the thesis and the appropriate references as much as possible.
9. We unified all of them with IoT.
10. In the introduction, we wrote why the IOT-based wearbale healthcare device should be considered in the developing country.
11. The components of the TAM were described in the TAM theoretical background.
12. In the conclusion section, the hypothesis verification results of this study were described.
Reviewer 3 Report
#Reviewer
This work targeted the applications of the Internet of Medical Things and their efficiency in improving or deteriorating healthcare services. With the requests of medical healthcare and treatments, the authors tried to find the appropriate wearable biosensors by employing Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
In my opinion, the study has the potential to create an opportunity for researchers for detecting redundant applications and remove their overheads from the Internet of Things and Medical Things-based infrastructures. Nevertheless, I have some concerns about the case study as follows:
In abstract
(1) I know that IoT and TAM describe the Internet of Things and Technology Acceptance Model; but, the authors have to describe the abbreviations before utilizing them in the manuscript.
(2) According to employ "IoT" and "IOT", the authors have to present a definition of IOT-based wearable devices.
(3) The abstract structure has not prosperous demonstrated the main contributions and novelties of the study.
(4) I recommend presenting quantitative results to illustrate the role of the proposed idea in medical and healthcare services. The study achievements were invisible in the abstract.
In introduction
(5) I faced some typos, grammatical, and structural problems such as “In this day and age, the Internet of Things (IoT) makes it possible to perform such technologies as collecting, monitoring, managing data, as well as analyzing diseases and their symptoms in a remote method [2].”, "Wearable healthcare devices are wearable devices that perform healthcare-related functions and are defined as devices that use NFC (Near Field Communication) technology to perform detection, measurement, collection, and transmission of health biological information that occurs in the body.", etc (On page 1).
(6) I recommend re-checking the concept of “In this day and age, the Internet of Things (IoT) makes it possible to perform such technologies as collecting, monitoring, managing data, as well as analyzing diseases and their symptoms in a remote method [2].". It seems incorrect. Researchers presented the IoT as an efficient technology for simplifying human life by creating an opportunity to remote-controlling the joined devices and people's vital signs.
(7) As a highlighted comment in the manuscript, the authors have to employ the correct medical and healthcare terms such as "VitalConnect" instead of "Vital Connect" (Cardiac Monitoring device).
(8) The authors have to refer to the source of information "According to Research and Market The global wearable medical device market is expected to grow from $8.35 billion in 2020 to $10.28 billion in 2021 at an annual CAGR of 23.1%.” .
(9) I recommend employing a standard format to refer to the references such as "Martin et al. [5]" instead of "Martin, Kelly, Kernohan, McCreight, and Nugent [5]" (On page 2).
(10) I recommend re-checking the concept of "IoT is a technology or environment that sends and receives data through real-time internet by attaching sensors to objects." (On page 2). I think that the definition described a router. When the Internet of Things technology has been proposed as an infrastructure for data transferring and creating communications between different devices in the various layers of the IoT.
(11) The presented definitions of the introduction have to transfer clear and correct concepts. I recommend referring to the reference of " Internet-of-Things devices are divided into health care devices for health care and lifestyle improvement and medical devices that monitor vital signs, which measure patients’ breathing, body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, and 65 ECG." if the authors deduced from a valid source (On page 2). The healthcare applications of IoT and IoMT created an opportunity to monitor, remote-controlling, and manage the health situation of the joined patients and people in the infrastructures, which consist of heart rate, blood sugar, blood pressure, oxygen level, Electrocardiography (ECG), Electroencephalography (EEG), etc.
(12) The authors have to describe all abbreviations before utilizing them such as "ECG". Also, the remainder of the manuscript has to be presented at the end of the introduction section.
In literature review
(13) The authors employed simple present verbs to review the previous studies that it has not seem correct.
(14) I faced some inappropriate structures of the sentences such as "The Internet of Things is a new communication environment that can be connected to anything anytime, anywhere, and the key is to connect humans, humans, things, and things without restrictions." (On page 3).
(15) The abbreviations have to be only described once in the text such as "Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)" (On page 3).
(16) The area of healthcare-based systems and IoMT-applications research is growing up, which covers emotional intelligence, diagnosis, and predict different dangerous diseases (Alzheimer's and Cancer). The authors have to review the recent studies when they almost analyzed the old related works.
In research model and hypothesis
(17) It does not seem appropriate to start a section with a Figure without presenting its details (Figure 1). The authors have to present a short explanation of the Figure.
(18) I recommend pointing out each hypothesis for explaining their reasons to present a proper discussion about them.
(19) I recommend inserting a table to demonstrate the positive and negative roles of the defined hypotheses in the actual healthcare-based applications and systems to clarify the efficiency of the research in the targeted area at the end of the section.
(20) The authors split Hypothesis 4 into four sub-hypothesizes that it has not seemed correct. I recommend replacing them with the inferences or similar concepts if the authors had not any reasons to prove splitting a hypothesis. Also, the issue applies to Hypothesises 5-8.
In empirical analysis
(21) Correct the typo problem of the section title "Emprical Analysis" (On page 9).
(22)The authors have to provide a short description of the presented Tables and Figures such as "Table 1".
(23) The authors have to refer to the references of collecting data sources and the reported percentages in the data collection sub-section (On page 11). Also, I recommend sharing the collected dataset of the research to verify the presented results.
(24) Describe the philosophy of considering reliability features to analyze the efficiency, before explaining the assessment method (Reliability assessment sub-section).
(25) I think that the authors intended to point out Table 2 in the mentioned sentence "As shown in Table 1, the AVE values for all latent variables are all above the value of 0.5 and thus provide a high degree of validity [75]." (On page 12). I recommend re-checking all similar problems.
(26) The authors have to define all existing parameters in the tables such as "P", "T", "SE", etc (On Tables 4-10 and pages 13-16).
(27) Determining the threshold values was not enough clear to demonstrate the research mechanism for deciding on the Hypothesis (Such as "T>±1.96").
In general discussion
(28) The authors were well-tried to present a comprehensive discussion. To increase the impact of research, I recommend analyzing its role in improving the efficiency of the healthcare-based systems and IoMT applications (In a short paragraph), besides the existing concepts in the section.
In finally
(29) Due to some mentioned typos and grammatical problems, Re-check and revise the manuscript text.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your great review. Overall, I supplemented my thesis. Please give us a good and generous evaluation by the reviewer.
Thank you.
(1) Both IOT and TAM are abbreviated.
(2) I specifically wrote about the definition of IOT-based wearable devices.
(3) I described the contributions and differences of this paper in Abstract section.
(4) The results and implications of this study were described in the abstract.
(5) The whole sentence was naturally corrected perfectly in grammar and structure.
(6) The definition for IOT has been rewritten. In addition, as the reviewer suggested, IoT was defined as an efficient technology that simplifies human life by creating opportunities to remotely control combined devices and human life signs.
(7) I rechecked the term exactly like 'vitalconnect'.
(8) The source is specified in "According to Research and Market".
(9) More than four authors have been written as 'et al.'
(10) The definition for IOT has been rewritten specifically.
(11) Redefined IOT and IOT-based healthcare device.
(12) Complete language description of ECG.
(13) I modified the entire English sentence.
(14) IOT terms for page3 have been redefined.
(15) All TAMs were abbreviated except for the first.
(16) The introduction was supplemented with additional articles about IOT and IOMT.
(17) The description of <Figure 1> has been supplemented.
(18) The discussion on hypothesis results was supplemented.
(19) The results table indicated whether the hypothesis was supported.
(20) 'ease of use' and 'usefulness' can be mediated separately, so we described them separately. As a result, 'ease of use' was not mediated alone.
(21) I modified it to 'empirical analysis'.
(22) Each table and table were described in sentences.
(23) The data results are shown as %.
(24) We supplemented the validity and reliability of PLS.
(25) I checked the methodology results, and all AVE values were 0.8 or higher.
(26) I defined 'P', 'T' and 'SE'.
(27) As a result of the verification, the p value was additionally presented. In addition, in the mediation result, the CI section was presented.
(28) In this study discussion, I presented what is needed to improve the efficiency of healthcare-based systems and IoMT applications.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Suggested review comments have been incorporated. Manuscript may be considered for publication
Author Response
Thank you for the best evaluation. I uploaded the final revision. Thank you very much for reviewing the paper.
Best regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Ref 98 is missing in the text
2. A use case deployment should be implemented.
3. No validation KPI found in the work
4. The abstract is poorly constructed and too wordy. Authors can expunge "Global enterprises are putting up numerous attempts to anticipate new markets, as a new 8 market for IoT-based healthcare wearable devices (IHWD), is beginning to emerge. IoT-based 9 healthcare wearable devices powered by the Internet of Things can measure a user's kinetic data 10 (calorie consumption, distance, number of steps, etc.) It measures footprint data (movement, foot 11 pressure, etc.) and works with the IoT platform to offer several applications. So far, the majority 12 of current top research on IoT-based healthcare wearable devices has focused on potential users. 13 The use and adoption of wearable healthcare devices are rapidly altering the medical service and 14 healthcare paradigms through the convergence of Internet of Things and healthcare devices, and the 15 market for these devices is expected to continue expanding as the healthcare industry experiences 16 rapid growth".
5. Expunge personal pronouns like I, we, etc
Author Response
Author's Notes to Reviewer 2
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, thank you very much for your valuable and valuable review. I did my best to revise the paper again. I look forward to your kind cooperation.
Best regards,
1. Reference 98 is on page 4.
2. The use cases of IWHD were complemented on pages 4 and 5 in the 2.1. Theoretical Background IoT-Based Wearable Healthcare Device section.
3. The KPI of this paper was supplemented on page 21 of the general discussion section.
This study found that the wearable healthcare device market can only expand and develop if research into potential users' attitudes toward the technology and related behaviors is done. As a result, the factors influencing potential users' acceptance of wearable healthcare devices were identified. This study's theoretical significance comes from the way it combines basic TAM models to present a model that takes into account factors and parameters that encourage potential users' acceptance intentions for IOT wearable healthcare devices. This model helps to explain how consumers come to accept IOT wearable healthcare devices. Additionally, from a practical perspective, it is significant that it discusses key implications for how to convince potential users to accept IOT wearable healthcare devices in the future by highlighting the factors that have a large impact on acceptable healthcare devices even as the market is still developing in its early stages.
4. I wrote the abstract part more concisely and clearly.
5. I deleted pronouns like I or We.
There have been many attempts to predict new markets, including a new market for IoT-based healthcare and the IoT platform's ability to offer a variety of applications. It is anticipated that the market for these devices will continue to grow as the healthcare sector undergoes fast expansion. IoT can measure a user's kinetic data (calorie consumption, distance, number of steps, etc.) using wearable healthcare equipment. Most of the recent top research on IoT-based healthcare wearable devices has, up to this point, concentrated on potential users. The medical industry and healthcare are being quickly changed by the use and adoption of wearable healthcare devices.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
#Reviewer
Before analyzing the revised manuscript, the authors must address and highlight the related variations to each request review. Finding the associated revisions is challenging for the reviewers. The authors were well-tried to solve the mentioned concerns. Nevertheless, some of them remain without acceptable responding include:
(1) Authors: Both IOT and TAM are abbreviated.
1- I know that IOT and TAM are abbreviations. I emphasized describing all abbreviations before utilizing them on the manuscript such as:
Internet of Things (IoMT), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), etc.
(4) Authors: The results and implications of this study were described in the abstract.
4- I found it. Please present your achievements in quantitative (Such as After implementing the idea, the number of users rises x%). Also, the direct efficiency of implementing the idea in healthcare-based systems is invisible (The issue has a highlighted role in presenting an abstract of the research).
(7) Authors: I rechecked the term exactly like 'vitalconnect'.
7- I found it. HealthPatch MD is a wearable biosensor for cardiac monitoring. Please, utilize the medical terms correctly, and instead of “health patch MD” with “HealthPatch MD”.
(8) Authors: The source is specified in "According to Research and Market".
8- Please, refer to the link of the mentioned source (Research and Market). The sources of all reported observations have to be determined.
(9) Authors: More than four authors have been written as 'et al.'
9- The format of referring to the references has to be integrated (Utilize the mentioned format for more than one author).
(10) Authors: The definition for IOT has been rewritten specifically.
10- Please, re-check the concept of “The Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) is an application of IoT technology in the healthcare industry, and its main purpose is to use smart devices equipped with sensors, actuators, monitors, detectors, video systems, and other components to keep track of patients' conditions.”. It seems incorrect; indeed, the researchers proposed the IoMT technology (As a separate technology) to overcome the challenges of healthcare-based applications of IoT technology. IoMT is not been described as an application.
(11) Authors: Redefined IOT and IOT-based healthcare device.
11- Please, describe all abbreviations before utilizing them in the manuscript such as “Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)”, etc. I ought not to point out all similar problems.
(17) Authors: The description of <Figure 1> has been supplemented.
17- Please, remove “<>”. This symbol is not correct. Also, please integrate the employed format to point out IoT such as “The research model is shown in Figure 1. <Figure 1> describes the relationship between the characteristic (personalization, service convenience, interactivity) variables and mediating variables (perceived use of use, community commitment) that affect the intention to use an IOT-based wearable healthcare device.” (On page 5).
(19) Authors: The results table indicated whether the hypothesis was supported.
19- Besides the result tables, I recommended presenting a new Table to demonstrate the role of the hypotheses to clarify their efficiency based on the applications.
(20) Authors: 'ease of use' and 'usefulness' can be mediated separately, so we described them separately. As a result, 'ease of use' was not mediated alone.
20- Their answer is not convincing and desirable. I pointed out the following issue:
“The authors split Hypothesis 4 into four sub-hypothesizes that it has not seemed correct. I recommend replacing them with the inferences or similar concepts if the authors had not any reasons to prove splitting a hypothesis. Also, the issue applies to Hypothesises 5-8.”
(22) Authors: Each table and table were described in sentences.
22- I found them. Please, remove “<>”. This symbol is not correct.
(23) Authors: The data results are shown as %.
23- I could not find the references. It seems to create a misunderstood and neglected the following comment:
“The authors have to refer to the references of collecting data sources and the reported percentages in the data collection sub-section (On page 11). Also, I recommend sharing the collected dataset of the research to verify the presented results.”
(24) Authors: We supplemented the validity and reliability of PLS.
24- Please, clarify the reliability concept in the research and your method or formula to assess the parameter.
(25) Authors: I checked the methodology results, and all AVE values were 0.8 or higher.
25- Please, re-check addressing the Tables and Figures. I think that the authors aimed to point out Table 2 instead of Table 1 in the sentence mentioned “As shown in Table 1, the AVE values for all latent variables are all above the value of 0.5 and thus provide a high degree of validity [75].” (On page 13). I addressed the problem in the previous round of the review as follows:
“I think that the authors intended to point out Table 2 in the mentioned sentence "As shown in Table 1, the AVE values for all latent variables are all above the value of 0.5 and thus provide a high degree of validity [75]." (On page 12). I recommend re-checking all similar problems.”
(27) Authors: As a result of the verification, the p value was additionally presented. In addition, in the mediation result, the CI section was presented.
27- In the previous round of reviewing, I emphasized describing the philosophy of determining the “T” threshold value. Please, describe it in a sentence or a short paragraph.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
(20) First of all, I applied the TAM model and decided that 'perceived case of use', 'perceived use', and 'virtual community immersion' are important parameters for IHWD acceptance. After that, we wanted to determine which characteristic variables lead to acceptance intention through which mediating path. I supplemented the theoretical basis for the mediation in TAM and virtual community image. If the reviewer gives me an idea for this part, I will try to revise it. However, since IHWD is a new field, I would like to supplement it in future papers by considering what I wanted to verify the role of the important 'virtual community immersion' in this field.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
# Reviewer:
Due to the last version of the manuscript, the authors solved the addressed problems; but, a highlighted issue remains in the paper, which is as follows:
The neglected comments by the authors include:
(4) Authors: The results and implications of this study were described in the abstract.
4- I found it. Please present your achievements in quantitative (Such as After implementing the idea, the number of users rises x%). Also, the direct efficiency of implementing the idea in healthcare-based systems is invisible (The issue has a highlighted role in presenting an abstract of the research).
(19) Authors: The results table indicated whether the hypothesis was supported.
19- Besides the result tables, I recommended presenting a new Table to demonstrate the role of the hypotheses to clarify their efficiency based on the applications.
(19) Re-comment: Please, provide a separate Table to demonstrate the role of the idea in the different applications (such as COVID-19 and biosensors in timely detecting brain tumors). The following references demonstrated a sample of comparing Tables, which the authors can inspire and refer them to analyze the role of hypotheses in the different medical-based applications:
[1] Nikoui TS, Rahmani AM, Balador A, Javadi HH. Analytical model for task offloading in a fog computing system with batch-size-dependent service. Computer Communications. 2022 Jun 1;190:201-15.
[2] MalekiTabar M, Rahmani AM. A delay-constrained node-disjoint multipath routing in software-defined vehicular networks. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications. 2022 May;15(3):1452-72.
[3] Le-Ngoc KK, Tho QT, Bui TH, Rahmani AM, Hosseinzadeh M. Optimized fuzzy clustering in wireless sensor networks using improved squirrel search algorithm. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 2022 Jun 30;438:121-47.
(23) Authors: The data results are shown as %.
23- I could not find the references. It seems to create a misunderstood and neglected the following comment:
“The authors have to refer to the references of collecting data sources and the reported percentages in the data collection sub-section (On page 11). Also, I recommend sharing the collected dataset of the research to verify the presented results.”
(23) Re-comment: The issue has to be generalized for all utilized data resources and pointed statistics in the manuscript. Also, the authors employed the Smart PLS tool to report the results based on the collected dataset, which I recommend sharing the collected dataset (imported dataset into the Smart PLS) on Github or dropbox, etc to validation of the experimental observation by the authors.
Besides the upper existing recommendations, providing the data resources as subtitles (such as subtitles on page 2) is not proper for addressing them. Please, insert the valid links of data resources and collected data in the references list and refer to them.
The highlighted problem is as follows:
(20) Authors: First of all, I applied the TAM model and decided that 'perceived case of use', 'perceived use', and 'virtual community immersion' are important parameters for IHWD acceptance. After that, we wanted to determine which characteristic variables lead to acceptance intention through which mediating path. I supplemented the theoretical basis for the mediation in TAM and virtual community image. If the reviewer gives me an idea for this part, I will try to revise it. However, since IHWD is a new field, I would like to supplement it in future papers by considering what I wanted to verify the role of the important 'virtual community immersion' in this field.
20- Their answer is not convincing and desirable. I pointed out the following issue:
“The authors split Hypothesis 4 into four sub-hypothesizes that it has not seemed correct. I recommend replacing them with the inferences or similar concepts if the authors had not any reasons to prove splitting a hypothesis. Also, the issue applies to Hypothesises 5-8.”
(20) Re-comment: The presented sub-hypothesizes introduced the expected results of predicted concepts of inferencing a hypothesis (such as hypothesis 4 and its sub-hypothesizes). The existing concepts of the sub-hypothesis have to prove that the sub-hypothesis is not like a predicted concept or expected result of the purposed hypothesis. Please, rename them expected results or predicted concepts of the hypotheses (such as expected result 6-1 of hypothesis 6) if the authors had not any similar mentioned analyses of the sub-hypothesizes.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your help to develop my paper.
(4) an answer to (4)
The results of this study in abstract and the effectiveness of cases applicable to actual IoMT were supplemented through figures.
The internet of medical things (IoMT) sector has had compound growth of about 26% between 2018 and 2021, which is a remarkable accomplishment. The effectiveness of factors affecting IOT intention will be examined in this study when applied to the actual IOT industry. First, patients with diabetes who previously had to check their blood sugar level through a blood test can check it through lifestyle management and steady glucose monitoring through IoMT glucose monitoring when the convenience and individuality of the service are improved. So far, 10% of all Americans have benefited from this device. Second, as an illustration of interactivity, when it comes to an IoMT-connected inhaler that is used to assist asthma sufferers in breathing, it notifies when an inhaler is left at home to remind them of the appropriate time to use the device, which consequently resulted in saving 1 life out of every 3 deaths.
(19) an answer to (19)
In the conclusion section, we demonstrate the role of the hypothesis to clarify its efficiency based on healthcare applications by presenting new tables in addition to the results table.
(23) an answer to (23)
I wrote the source of each variable at the bottom of page 11. On the first line of page 12, we identified the source of the data sharing.
This data is available at https://github.com/777minjungkang/IOThealthcare.
(20) an answer to (20)
I deleted all the sub-concept hypotheses from Hypothesis 4. And we rewritten the hypothesis.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
