Factors Affecting mHealth Technology Adoption in Developing Countries: The Case of Egypt
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Previous Work on mHealth Adoption in Developing Countries
2.2. Future Role of Emerging Technologies in Health Services
2.3. mHealth Start-Ups in Egypt
3. Methodology
3.1. Hypotheses Raising Study
Language | Culture issues | Perceived Reputation |
Trust | Perceived Familiarity | Perceived Service Quality |
Perceived Ease of Use | Perceived Risk | Governance |
Personalized Experience | Portability | Explain-ability |
Interactivity |
3.2. Hypotheses Testing Study
4. Analysis and Results
4.1. Demographic Characteristics
4.2. Construct Reliability
4.3. Item Reliability
4.4. Item Correlations
4.5. Construct Validity
4.6. Final Reliability
4.7. Regression
5. Discussion
6. Research Conclusions and Contributions
7. Research Limitations and Future Work
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
PREP | Perceived Reputation |
PFAM | Perceived Familiarity |
TRST | Trust |
PSQ | Perceived Service Quality |
PRSK | Perceived Risk |
CUL | Culture |
PEOU | Perceived Ease of Use |
GOV | Governance |
LANG | Language |
WTU | Willingness to Use |
PEREXP | Personalized Experience |
EXP | Explain-ability |
INTER | Interactivity |
Appendix A
Const-ruct | Item | PREP | PFAM | PSQ | PEOU | TRST | WTU | GOV | EXPL | LANG |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PREP | PREP2 | 0.6989 (8.3966 **) | ||||||||
PREP3 | 0.8931 (57.995 **) | |||||||||
PFAM | PFAM1 | 0.8289 (42.0390 **) | ||||||||
PFAM4 | 0.7509 (18.9136 **) | |||||||||
PSQ | PSQ1 | 0.8178 (41.0290 **) | ||||||||
PSQ2 | 0.7237 (17.5371 **) | |||||||||
PEOU | PEOU 1 | 0.8215 (28.7253 **) | ||||||||
PEOU 2 | 0.8538 (27.1163 **) | |||||||||
PEOU 3 | 0.8541 (29.2614 **) | |||||||||
TRST | TRST1 | 0.8439 (36.6826 **) | ||||||||
TRST2 | 0.8742 (41.1002 **) | |||||||||
WTU | WTU1 | 0.7124 (15.298 **) | ||||||||
WTU2 | 0.7926 (16.857 **) | |||||||||
GOV | GOV1 | 0.8439 (36.6826 **) | ||||||||
GOV2 | 0.8742 (41.1002 **) | |||||||||
EXPL | EXPL1 | 0.7124 (15.291 **) | ||||||||
EXPL3 | 0.7926 (16.853 **) | |||||||||
LANG | LANG1 | 0.7124 (15.291 **) | ||||||||
LANG2 | 0.7926 (16.853 **) |
Appendix B
Constructs | PREP | PFAM | PSQ | PEOU | TRST | WTU | GOV | EXPL | LANG | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PREP | Pearson Correlation | 1.000 | −0.035 | −0.007 | −0.040 | 0.078 | 0.116 * | 0.059 | 0.191 ** | 0.189 ** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.0 | 0.546 | 0.898 | 0.495 | 0.179 | 0.046 | 0.314 | 0.002 | 0.013 | |
PFAM | Pearson Correlation | −0.035 | 1.000 | 0.553 ** | 0.402 ** | 0.323 ** | 0.319 ** | 0.127 * | 0.058 | 0.067 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.556 | 0.0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.029 | 0.339 | 0.348 | |
PSQ | Pearson Correlation | −0.007 | 0.553 ** | 1.000 | 0.469 ** | 0.244 ** | 0.198 ** | 0.039 | 0.114 | 0.118 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.898 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.500 | 0.057 | 0.067 | |
PEOU | Pearson Correlation | −0.040 | 0.402 * | 0.479 ** | 1.000 | 0.492 ** | 0.515 ** | 0.160 ** | 0.133 * | 0.156 * |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.495 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.005 | 0.027 | 0.058 | |
TRST | Pearson Correlation | 0.078 | 0.323 ** | 0.244 ** | 0.492 ** | 1.000 | 0.557 ** | 0.083 | 0.090 | 0.072 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.179 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0.000 | 0.149 | 0.134 | 0.125 | |
WTU | Pearson Correlation | 0.116 * | 0.319 ** | 0.198 ** | 0.515 ** | 0.557 ** | 1.000 | 0.118 * | 0.090 | 0.081 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.046 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0.040 | 0.133 | 0.144 | |
GOV | Pearson Correlation | 0.059 | 0.127 * | 0.039 | 0.160 ** | 0.083 | 0.118 * | 1.000 | 0.128 * | 0.117 * |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.314 | 0.029 | 0.500 | 0.005 | 0.149 | 0.040 | 0.0 | 0.033 | 0.022 | |
EXPL | Pearson Correlation | 0.191 ** | 0.058 | 0.114 | 0.133 * | 0.090 | 0.090 | 0.128 * | 1.000 | 0.138 * |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.002 | 0.339 | 0.057 | 0.027 | 0.134 | 0.133 | 0.033 | 0.0 | 0.023 | |
LANG | Pearson Correlation | 0.189 ** | 0.067 | 0.118 | 0.156 * | 0.072 | 0.081 | 0.117 * | 0.138 * | 1.000 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.013 | 0.348 | 0.067 | 0.058 | 0.125 | 0.144 | 0.022 | 0.023 | 0.0 |
References
- Grand View Research mHealth Market Size & Share, Trends Report: By Component, By Services (Monitoring Services, Diagnosis Services), By Participants (Mobile Operators, Devices Vendors), By Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2022–2030. Grand View Publication 2022, Report ID: 978–1-68038–076–7. Available online: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/mhealth-market/segmentation (accessed on 2 May 2022).
- Artezio. Mobile Health Industry Trends and Forecast 2021. Available online: https://www.artezio.com/pressroom/blog/mobile-industry-forecast/2021 (accessed on 2 May 2022).
- Babatunde, A.; Abdulkareem, A.; Akinwande, F.; Adebayo, A.; Omenogor, E.; Adebisi, Y.; Ilesanmi, E. Leveraging mobile health technology towards Achieving Universal Health Coverage in Nigeria. Public Health Pract. 2021, 2, 100120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alam, M.; Hoquec, M.; Hud, W.; Baruae, Z. Factors influencing the adoption of mHealth services in a developing country: A patient-centric study. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 50, 128–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Liu, C.; Luo, S.; Xie, Y.; Liu, F.; Li, X.; Zhou, Z. Factors Influencing Patients’ Intentions to Use Diabetes Management Apps Based on an Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model: Web-Based Survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e15023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Octavius, G.; Antonio, F. Antecedents of Intention to Adopt Mobile Health (mHealth) Application and Its Impact on Intention to Recommend: An Evidence from Indonesian Customers. Int. J. Telemed. Appl. 2021, 2021, 6698627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Allida, S.; Du, H.; Xu, X.; Prichard, R.; Chang, S.; Hickman, L.D. mHealth education interventions in heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 7, CD011845. [Google Scholar]
- Giansanti, D. The role of the m-health in the fight against the Covid-19: Successes and failures. Healthcare 2021, 9, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Addotey-Delove, M.; Scott, R.; Mars, M. The development of an instrument to predict patients’ adoption of mHealth in the developing world. Inform. Med. Unlocked 2022, 29, 100898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Addotey-Delove, M.; Scott, R.; Mars, M. A healthcare workers’ mHealth adoption instrument for the developing world. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2022, 22, 1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jembai, J.; Wong, Y.; Bakhtiar, N.; Lazim, S.; Ling, H.; Kuan, P.; Chua, P. Mobile health applications: Awareness, attitudes, and practices among medical students in Malaysia. BMC Med. Educ. 2022, 22, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peprah, P.; Abalo, E.M.; Agyemang-Duah, W.; Gyasi, R.M.; Reforce, O.; Nyonyo, J. Knowledge, attitude, and use of mHealth technology among students in Ghana: A university-based survey. BMC Med. Inf. Decis. Mak. 2019, 19, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mansour, E. Health informatics: The ownership and use of mobile medical applications among Egyptian patients. J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. 2017, 49, 335–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MCIT: Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. ICT Indicators in Brief, 2021. Available online: https://www.mcit.gov.eg/Upcont/Documents/Publications_1992012000_Eng%20Flyer-August2012-last.pdf (accessed on 6 May 2022).
- Raven, A. Egypt’s Health Tech Start-ups Poised to Meet Surging Demand. Int. Financ. Corp. (IFC) Insights. Available online: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/news_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/news+and+events/news/insights/health-tech-startups-egypt2021 (accessed on 11 March 2022).
- Messieh, N. Mobile Health Has Huge Potential in the Middle East, Industry Study Says. Available online: https://thenextweb.com/me/2011/10/31/mobile-health-has-huge-potential-inthe-middleeast-industry-study-says2021 (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Akter, S.; Ray, P.; D’Ambra, J. Continuance of mHealth services at the bottom of the pyramid: The roles of service quality and trust. Electron Mark. 2013, 23, 29–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, Z.; Hong, Z.; Ren, C.; Zhang, W.; Xiang, F. What predicts patients’ adoption intention toward mHealth services in China: Empirical study. JMIR Mhealth u-Health 2018, 6, e172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meng, F.; Guo, X.; Peng, Z.; Lai, K.; Zhao, X. Investigating the adoption of mobile health services by elderly users: Trust transfer model and survey study. JMIR Mhealth u-Health 2019, 7, e12269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lee, E.; Han, S.; Jo, H. Consumer choice of on-demand mHealth app services: Context and contents values using structural equation modelling. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2017, 97, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obaidi, M.; Nagel, L.; Specht, A.; Klünder, J. Sentiment analysis tools in software engineering: A systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2022, 151, 107018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atoum, I.; Baklizi, M.; Alsmadi, I.; Otoom, A.; Alhersh, T.; Ababneh, J.; Almalki, J.; Alshahrani, S. Challenges of Software Requirements Quality Assurance and Validation: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 137613–137634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murnane, E.; Huaker, D.; Kossinets, G. Mobile Health Apps: Adoption, Adherence, and Abandonment. In UbiComp/ISWC’15 Adjunct: Adjunct, Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Osaka, Japan, 7–11 September 2015; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Alsamhi, S.; Lee, R. Blockchain-Empowered Multi-Robot Collaboration to Fight COVID-19 and Future Pandemics. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 44173–44197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahal, R.; Alsamhi, S.; Brown, K.; O’Shea, D.; Alouffi., B. Blockchain-Based Digital Twins Collaboration for Smart Pandemic Alerting: Decentralized COVID-19 Pandemic Alerting Use Case. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2022, 22, 7786441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization (WHO). mHealth: New Horizons for Health through Mobile Technologies; 2011. Available online: https://www.who.int/goe/publications/goe_mhealth_web.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2022).
- Guest, G. Applied Thematic Analysis; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Bernard, H.; Ryan, G. Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Keil, M.; Tan, B.; Wei, K.; Saarinen, T.; Tuunainen, V.; Wassenaar, A. A Cross-Cultural Study on Escalation of Communication Behavior in Software Projects. MIS Q. 2000, 24, 299–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modelling. In Modern Methods for Business Research: Methodology for Business & Management Series; Marcoulides, G., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 295–336. ISBN 0805826777. [Google Scholar]
- Jarvenpaa, S.; Tractinsky, N.; Vitale, M. Consumer Trust in an Internet Store. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2000, 1, 45–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Straub, D. Managing User Trust in B2C e-Services. E-Serv. J. 2003, 2, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juwaini, A.; Chidir, G.; Novitasari, D.; Iskandar, J.; Hutagalung, D.; Pramono, T.; Maulan, A.; Safitri, K.; Fahlevi, M.; Sulistyo, A.; et al. The role of customer e-trust, customer e-service quality and customer e-satisfaction on customer e-loyalty. Int. J. Data Sci. 2022, 26, 477–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Thong, Y.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values 2012, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations, 2nd ed.; Sage Publication: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001; ISBN 0803973233. [Google Scholar]
- Kortemann, M. Cultural Background and Technology Acceptance: Evaluation of ICT Projects that Bridge the Digital Divide. In Designing for Global Markets 7: Bridging Cultural Differences: IWIPS’ 2005, Proceedings of The Seventh International Workshop on Internationalization of Products and Systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 7–9 July 2005; Day, D., Evers, V., Del Galdo, E., Eds.; Grafisch Centrum Amsterdam: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 151–158. ISBN 0-9722184-7-5. [Google Scholar]
- Shankar, V.; Urban, G.; Sultan, F. Online Trust: A Stakeholder Perspective, Concepts, Implications, and Future Directions. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2002, 11, 325–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Said, R.; Galal-Edeen, G. The Role of Culture in E-Commerce Use for the Egyptian Consumers. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2009, 15, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Y.; Zhang, J.; Ma, L.; Qin, X.; Li, J. Examining user’s initial trust building in Mobile online health community adopting. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Study | Developing Country | Factors Affecting mHealth Adoption | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trust | Perceived Ease of Use | Perceived Risk | Perceived Privacy | Cost | Infrastructure | Perceived Service Quality | Social Influence | Perceived Usefulness | Convenience | Technical Support | User Characteristics | Portability | Literacy | Perceived Ownership | ||
[9] | Ghana | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||||
[10] | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||
[6] | Indonesia | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||||
[4] | Bangladesh | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||||
[17] | √ | √ | ||||||||||||||
[16] | United Arab Emirates | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||||
[13] | Egypt | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||||
[5] | China | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||
[18] | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||||
[19] | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||||
[20] | South Korea | √ | √ | √ |
Sample of Answers Statements | Sub-Theme | Theme |
---|---|---|
“The app needs to be in both Arabic and English… I need to be able to switch between these two languages smoothly” “I expect to receive information in medical terms with explanation in natural language” |
| Language |
“I need the option to select the gender of the healthcare provider, I do prefer to be in contact with a female doctor” “If this app is expected to be used nation-wide, illiterate users should be interacting with voice or comprehensive icons” |
| Culture |
“I would trust the mobile app if the service provider were well reputed and widely recognized” “The app would be more trustworthy if endorsed by a known expert” “…. obtained certification to operate from a governmental official” |
| Perceived Reputation and Trust |
“I prefer to use app I am familiar with.” “I prefer an app I used before, or an app designed like what I am familiar with, this will ease the process of searching” “I would feel confident to use an app used by people I know” |
| Perceived Familiarity |
“…accurate medical information given” “I should receive a follow-up communication, to check my feedback and health status.” “Allow users’ ratings and reviews and they are reliable” |
| Perceived Service Quality |
“I need to find the interface easy to use” “I would be motivated to use the app if the use instructions are comprehensive” “Using the App does not require external help/instructions” |
| Perceived Ease of Use |
“Such mobile apps are not secure; my data would be miss-used when using such apps” “Who will be governing the app? Private sector or the ministry of health?” “users’ data security is a key issue for using or not using the app” “I need to be given a declaration concerning my health data privacy and confidentiality” |
| Perceived Risk and Governance |
“The app should recognize my preferences based on previous use” “User data would be saved in a profile, such as location and health insurances, based on which the search results could be tailored” “The app should not suggest to me a healthcare provider, I already rated low” |
| Personalized Experience |
“Will the app work on different types of mobiles and systems? What about Internet connectivity instability…? Not all users have up-to-date smart phone…. Connections are not reliable in many areas” “I would prefer to use the app from my laptop” |
| Portability |
“when recommending a healthcare service provider, the app should provide all details of the expected service, ex.: fees, waiting time, insurance coverage…” “The mechanism of search engine should be transparent…what are the criteria based on which the search results are sorted?” “The full experience of user review should be cited, not only ranking” |
| Explain-ability |
“I understood that the interaction is asynchronous ….in critical health cases real time communication is needed…or in case of an error in the app” “I do prefer to communicate with a human not an app especially when it comes to health consultation” |
| Interactivity |
Item | Frequency | % | Item | Frequency | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Use of Search Engines | ||||
Male | 68 | 45% | Never | 0 | 0% |
Female | 82 | 55% | Rarely | 5 | 3% |
Occasionally | 27 | 18% | |||
Frequently | 118 | 79% | |||
Age Range | Browsing the Net | ||||
<20 | 12 | 8% | Never | 0 | 0% |
20–29 | 21 | 14% | Rarely | 5 | 3% |
30–39 | 29 | 19% | Occasionally | 37 | 25% |
40–49 | 41 | 28% | Frequently | 108 | 72% |
50–60 | 32 | 21% | |||
>60 | 15 | 10% | |||
Technology Use | How long using the Net | ||||
Novice | 15 | 10% | ≤1 year | 0 | 0% |
Intermediate | 42 | 28% | 2–3 years | 32 | 21% |
Professional | 93 | 62% | 4–5 years | 41 | 27% |
≥6 years | 77 | 52% | |||
Previous Use of M-Health App | Language Preference | ||||
Never | 42 | 28% | Arabic | 57 | 38% |
Rarely | 30 | 20% | English | 62 | 41% |
Occasionally | 46 | 31% | Arabic & English | 31 | 21% |
Frequently | 32 | 21% | |||
Previous Use of M-Health App to search and/or book medical service | Previous Use of M-Health App to get online medical service | ||||
Never | 42 | 28% | Never | 42 | 28% |
Rarely | 30 | 20% | Rarely | 30 | 20% |
Occasionally | 46 | 31% | Occasionally | 46 | 31% |
Frequently | 32 | 21% | Frequently | 32 | 21% |
Construct | Composite Reliability | AVE | Cronbach Alpha | Construct | Composite Reliability | AVE | Cronbach Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived Reputation-PREP | 0.881 | 0.648 | 0.840 | Willingness to Use-WTU | 0.931 | 0.772 | 0.902 |
Perceived Familiarity- PFAM | 0.401 | 0.418 | 0.449 | Governance-GOV | 0.839 | 0.726 | 0.605 |
Perceived Service Quality-PSQ | 0.897 | 0.812 | 0.745 | Portability-POR | 0.891 | 0.804 | 0.801 |
Perceived Risk-PRSK | 0.393 | 0.436 | 0.459 | Personalized Experience- PEREXP | 0.425 | 0.405 | 0.487 |
Perceived Ease of Use-PEOU | 0.846 | 0.650 | 0.757 | Explain-ability-Exp | 0.869 | 0.790 | 0.618 |
Interactivity-Inter | 0.301 | 0.402 | 0.339 | Language-LANG | 0.867 | 0.856 | 0.735 |
Trust-TRST | 0.832 | 0.612 | 0.831 | Culture-CUL | 0.412 | 0.434 | 0.451 |
Construct/Source from Literature/Item | Item Loadings | Item Construct Correlation |
---|---|---|
Perceived Reputation—PREP [31] | ||
PREP1—This app has a bad reputation | 0.3228 | 0.396 |
PREP2—This app is well known | 0.7117 | 0.785 |
PREP3—This app has a good reputation | 0.8931 | 0.931 |
Perceived Familiarity—PFAM [32] | ||
PFAM1—I am familiar with searching for information on this app | 0.8289 | 0.867 |
PFAM2—I am familiar with paying for services on this app | 0.3128 | 0.429 |
PFAM3—I am familiar with this app | 0.3572 | 0.340 |
PFAM4—I am familiar with doctors’ ratings on this app | 0.7509 | 0.777 |
Perceived Service Quality—PSQ [33] | ||
PSQ1—I would recommend this app to friends | 0.6012 | 0.787 |
PSQ2—This app is reliable and accurate | 0.7356 | 0.789 |
PSQ3—This app responds quickly to problems | 0.4678 | 0.545 |
PSQ4—This app provides contact services for users | 0.5321 | 0.512 |
Perceived Risk—PRSK [31] | ||
PRSK1—There is too much uncertainty associated with this app | 0.8123 | 0.896 |
PRSK2—Compared with other ways, online payment is risky | 0.5456 | 0.598 |
PRSK3—There could be negative consequences of online payment | 0.8789 | 0.868 |
Perceived Ease of Use—PEOU [34] | ||
PPEOU1—Learning how to use this app is easy to use | 0.8215 | 0.825 |
PEOU2—My interaction with this app is clear | 0.8538 | 0.882 |
PPEOU3—I find this app easy to use | 0.8541 | 0.867 |
Trust—TRST [32] | ||
TRST1—I trust this app is reliable | 0.8439 | 0.899 |
TRST2—I believe that this app is trustworthy | 0.8742 | 0.904 |
TRST3—I trust providing personal information to this app | 0.5433 | 0.504 |
Willingness to Use—WTU [31] | ||
WTU1—I am very likely to use this app | 0.7124 | 0.666 |
WTU2—I am very likely to use this app in 3 months | 0.7926 | 0.865 |
WTU3—I am very likely to use this app in the next year | 0.5533 | 0.571 |
Governance | ||
GOV1—It is important to know who is governing the app | 0.6542 | 0.698 |
GOV2—It is important to know who is licensing the app to operate | 0.7931 | 0.878 |
Portability | ||
POR1—The app can be used on various devices | 0.5412 | 0.598 |
POR2—The app can operate with weak internet connectivity | 0.8789 | 0.868 |
Personalized Experience | ||
PEREXP1—the app recognizes my profile once I log in | 0.4124 | 0.466 |
PEREXP2—the app tailors search results based on my profile | 0.7931 | 0.858 |
Explain-ability | ||
EXPL1—the app provides details of recommended medical service | 0.8132 | 0.869 |
EXPL2—the app provides an explanation of search criteria | 0.5431 | 0.578 |
EXPL3—the app provides details of user reviews | 0.8788 | 0.869 |
Interactivity | ||
INTER1—the app provides real-time health consultation | 0.8412 | 0.898 |
INTER2—the app provides real-time troubleshooting | 0.8789 | 0.868 |
Language | ||
LANG1—the app supports Arabic and English data entry | 0.8513 | 0.808 |
LANG2—the app owns Arabic and English interfaces | 0.8712 | 0.834 |
Culture | ||
CUL1—The gender of the healthcare service provider matters to me | 0.3412 | 0.348 |
CUL2—A specific level of literacy is needed to use the app | 0.6689 | 0.668 |
Construct | Number of Items | Cronbach Alpha |
---|---|---|
PREP | 2 | 0.821 |
PFAM | 2 | 0.869 |
PSQ | 2 | 0.801 |
PEOU | 3 | 0.897 |
TRST | 2 | 0.802 |
WTU | 2 | 0.912 |
GOV | 2 | 0.867 |
EXPL | 2 | 0.923 |
LANG | 2 | 0.834 |
Dependent Variable | R2 | Independent Variables | Coefficient (T-Value) | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|
WTU | 0.887 | PREP | 0.892 (13.258 **) | 0.000 |
PEOU | 0.887 (12.799 **) | 0.000 | ||
GOV | 0.770 (11.899 **) | 0.000 | ||
LANG | 0.722 (10.911 **) | 0.000 | ||
EXPL | 0.512 (8.901 **) | 0.000 | ||
TRST | 0.511 (8.999 **) | 0.000 | ||
PSQ | 0.432 (6.799 **) | 0.000 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the author. 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
Said, G.R.E. Factors Affecting mHealth Technology Adoption in Developing Countries: The Case of Egypt. Computers 2023, 12, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12010009
Said GRE. Factors Affecting mHealth Technology Adoption in Developing Countries: The Case of Egypt. Computers. 2023; 12(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12010009
Chicago/Turabian StyleSaid, Ghada Refaat El. 2023. "Factors Affecting mHealth Technology Adoption in Developing Countries: The Case of Egypt" Computers 12, no. 1: 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12010009
APA StyleSaid, G. R. E. (2023). Factors Affecting mHealth Technology Adoption in Developing Countries: The Case of Egypt. Computers, 12(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12010009