Understanding the Role of Mobile Internet-Based Health Services on Patient Satisfaction and Word-of-Mouth
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Model and Hypotheses Development
2.1. Post-Adoption Behavior: Continuous Intention and WOM
2.2. Expectation Confirmation Model of Information Technology Continuance (ECM-IT)
2.3. Perceived Interactivity, Perceived Risk and Facilitating Conditions
2.3.1. Perceived Interactivity
2.3.2. Perceived Risk
2.3.3. Facilitating Conditions
3. Research Methodology
3.1. MIHS Implementation and Use
- (a)
- Patients can access MIHS via the Internet or the hospital’s WeChat public account. Doctors’ information and their schedules are also available in the system, and patients can search, choose, and make appointments with their preferred doctors. They can complete registration, prepay online instead of waiting in line, and cancel appointments.
- (b)
- The hospital can conduct post-operation health tracking and evaluation for a patient. The medical staff can obtain feedback from patients and offer medical and health-related suggestions, if necessary. Patients can communicate their symptoms to the doctors or nurses directly. They can discuss their current health status, postoperative rehabilitation, relevant precautions, etc. Additionally, the doctors can also provide online remote diagnosis services to patients with chronic diseases.
- (c)
- Patients can assess their own health status based on a case-based health self-assessment subsystem. The type of assessment is based on historical cases and the whole life-cycle dynamic health data of the patients. Generally, only health status (level), but sometimes potential health risks and health promotion solutions can also be obtained. Patients can also consult with doctors about the assessment results and ask for suggestions.
- (d)
- Patients can acquire various health care and expense information. Health care information includes electronic health records, physical examination reports, etc. Expense information includes registration fees, detailed operation fees, drug fees, etc. Digital health care reports can be printed out by patients via a procedure of application and verification. This allows patients to easily track care processing and outcomes. Patients can voice concerns about their treatment, the nursing process, and expenses.
- (e)
- Patients can also perform medical care service satisfaction evaluations on doctors, nurses, departments, teams, the hospital, or a specific medical service event, such as an operation. They can leave detailed information about why and in what areas they are satisfied. The hospitals can conduct a satisfaction analysis based on the collected assessment data, which will be helpful for the promotion of its health care service.
3.2. Measures
3.3. Sample and Data Collection
4. Results
4.1. Measurement Model
4.2. Common Methods Variance
4.3. Multicollinearity
4.4. Structural Model
5. Discussion, Implications and Limitations
5.1. Discussion
5.2. Implications
5.2.1. Implications for Research
5.2.2. Implications for Practice
5.3. Limitations
6. Conclusions and Future Directions
Author Contributions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sundberg, K.; Eklöf, A.L.; Blomberg, K.; Isaksson, A.K.; Wengström, Y. Feasibility of an interactive ICT-platform for early assessment and management of patient-reported symptoms during radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2015, 19, 523–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huppertz, J.W.; Carlson, J.P. Consumers’ use of HCAHPS ratings and word-of-mouth in hospital choice. Health Serv. Res. 2010, 45, 1602–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, H.; Guo, X.; Wu, T.; Ju, X. Exploring the effects of patient-generated and system-generated information on patients’ online search, evaluation and decision. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2015, 14, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, E. Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. J. Serv. Res. 1998, 1, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kucukarslan, S.N.; Nadkarni, A. Evaluating medication-related services in a hospital setting using the disconfirmation of expectations model of satisfaction. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2008, 4, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yan, Q.; Zhou, S.; Wu, S. The influences of tourists’ emotions on the selection of electronic word of mouth platforms. Tour. Manag. 2018, 66, 348–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hennig-Thurau, T.; Gwinner, K.P.; Walsh, G.; Gremler, D.D. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? J. Interact. Mark. 2004, 18, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, S.; Guangju, W.; Jafar, R.M.S.; Ilyas, Z.; Mustafa, G.; Jianzhou, Y. Consumers’ online information adoption behavior: Motives and antecedents of electronic word of mouth communications. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 80, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drevs, F.; Hinz, V. Who chooses, who uses, who rates: The impact of agency on electronic word-of-mouth about hospitals stays. Health Care Manag. Rev. 2013, 39, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, W.Y. Influences on the perceived value of medical travel: The moderating roles of risk attitude, self-esteem and word-of-mouth. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fakharyan, M.; Omidvar, S.; Khodadadian, M.R.; Jalilvand, M.R.; Vosta, L.N. Examining the effect of customer-to-customer interactions on satisfaction, loyalty, and word-of-mouth behaviors in the hospitality industry: The mediating role of personal interaction quality and service atmospherics. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2014, 31, 610–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitapci, O.; Akdogan, C.; Dortyol, I.T. The impact of service quality dimensions on patient satisfaction, repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth communication in the public healthcare industry. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 148, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delpierre, C.; Cuzin, L.; Fillaux, J.; Alvarez, M.; Massip, P.; Lang, T. A systematic review of computer-based patient record systems and quality of care: More randomized clinical trials or a broader approach? Int. J. Qual. Health Care 2004, 16, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jenkinson, C.; Coulter, A.; Bruster, S.; Richards, N.; Chandola, T. Patients’ experiences and satisfaction with health care: Results of a questionnaire study of specific aspects of care. Qual. Saf. Health Care 2002, 11, 335–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amin, I.M.; Hussein, S.S.; Isa, W.A. Assessing user satisfaction of using hospital information system (HIS) in Malaysia. People 2011, 12, 13. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melas, C.D.; Zampetakis, L.A.; Dimopoulou, A.; Moustakis, V. Modeling the acceptance of clinical information systems among hospital medical staff: An extended TAM model. J. Biomed. Inform. 2011, 44, 553–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; Lu, Y.; Chau, P.Y.K. Why do consumers adopt online channel? An empirical investigation of two channel extension mechanisms. Decis. Support Syst. 2013, 54, 858–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, J. The impact of post-adoption beliefs on the continued use of health apps. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2016, 87, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhattacherjee, A.; Lin, C.-P. A unified model of IT continuance: Three complementary perspectives and crossover effects. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2015, 24, 364–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagayogo, F.F.; Lapointe, L.; Bassellier, G. Enhanced use of IT: A new perspective on post-adoption. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2014, 15, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mouakket, S. Factors influencing continuance intention to use social network sites: The Facebook case. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 53, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, C.M.; Thadani, D.R. The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 54, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Libai, B.; Muller, E.; Peres, R. Decomposing the value of word-of-mouth seeding programs: Acceleration versus expansion. J. Mark. Res. 2013, 50, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, H.; Animesh, A.; Pinsonneault, A. Free versus for-a-fee: The impact of a paywall on the pattern and effectiveness of word-of-mouth via social media. MIS Q. 2016, 40, 31–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sweeney, J.; Soutar, G.; Mazzarol, T. Factors enhancing word-of-mouth influence: Positive and negative service-related messages. Eur. J. Mark. 2014, 48, 336–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, N.; Shen, X.L.; Sun, Y. Transition of electronic word-of-mouth services from web to mobile context: A trust transfer perspective. Decis. Support Syst. 2013, 54, 1394–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, R.A.; Racherla, P.; Bush, V.D. What we know and don’t know about online word-of-mouth: A review and synthesis of the literature. J. Interact. Mark. 2014, 28, 167–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aghakhani, N.; Karimi, J.; Salehan, M. A unified model for the adoption of electronic word of mouth on social network sites: Facebook as the exemplar. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2018, 22, 202–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baek, H.; Oh, S.; Yang, H.D.; Ahn, J. Electronic word-of-mouth, box office revenue and social media. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2017, 22, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leong, L.Y.; Hew, T.S.; Ooi, K.B.; Lin, B. Do electronic word-of-mouth and elaboration likelihood model influence hotel booking? J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2017, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berger, J. Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 586–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Liu, Y. Understanding post-adoption behaviors of e-service users in the context of online travel services. Inf. Manag. 2014, 51, 1043–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ha, Y.; Im, H. Role of web site design quality in satisfaction and word of mouth generation. J. Serv. Manag. 2012, 23, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-S.; Lin, C.-L.; Chang, C.-H. The influence of green wash on green word-of-mouth (green WOM): The mediation effects of green perceived quality and green satisfaction. Qual. Quant. 2014, 48, 2411–2425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, D.; So, A. Do happy tourists spread more word-of-mouth? The mediating role of life satisfaction. Ann. Tour. Res. 2013, 43, 646–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choudhury, K. Service quality and word of mouth: A study of the banking sector. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2014, 32, 612–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.S.; Wu, S.; Tsai, R.J. Integrating perceived playfulness into expectation-confirmation model for web portal context. Inf. Manag. 2005, 42, 683–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thong, J.Y.; 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]
- Wong, C.-H.; Tan, G.W.-H.; Loke, S.-P.; Ooi, K.-B. Adoption of mobile social networking sites for learning? Online Inf. Rev. 2015, 39, 762–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, N.; Lee, M.K.; Cheung, C.; Chen, H. The continuance of online social networks: How to keep people using Facebook? In Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Honolulu, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2010; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, S.J.; Thong, J.; Tam, K.Y. Understanding continued IT usage: An extension to the expectation-confirmation model in IT domain. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, PACIS 2005, Bangkok, Thailand, 7–10 July 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Holton, A.E.; Baek, K.; Coddington, M.; Yaschur, C. Seeking and sharing: Motivations for linking on Twitter. Commun. Res. Rep. 2014, 31, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, C.D.; Holmes, G.M.; Lewis, S.E.; Thompson, K.W.; Cykert, S.; DeWalt, D.A. Satisfaction with electronic health records is associated with job satisfaction among primary care physicians. J. Innov. Health Inform. 2013, 21, 18–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Closs, D.J.; Savitskie, K. Internal and external logistics information technology integration. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2003, 14, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulati, R.; Garino, J. Get the right mix of bricks & clicks. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1999, 78, 107–114. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Dutta-Bergman, M.J. The impact of completeness and web use motivation on the credibility of e-Health information. J. Commun. 2004, 54, 253–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bøe, T.; Gulbrandsen, B.; Sørebø, Ø. How to stimulate the continued use of ICT in higher education: Integrating Information Systems Continuance Theory and agency theory. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 50, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L.; Lu, Y. Enhancing perceived interactivity through network externalities: An empirical study on micro-blogging service satisfaction and continuance intention. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 53, 825–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McMillan, S.J.; Hwang, J.-S. 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]
- Shipps, B. Social networks, interactivity and satisfaction: Assessing socio-technical behavioral factors as an extension to technology acceptance. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2013, 8, 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X.; Roy, S.K.; Quazi, A.; Nguyen, B.; Han, Y. Internet entrepreneurship and “the sharing of information” in an Internet-of-Things context: The role of interactivity, stickiness, e-satisfaction and word-of-mouth in online SMEs’ websites. Internet Res. 2017, 27, 74–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Li, C.; Ji, Y.G.; North, M.; Yang, F. Like it or not: The Fortune 500’s Facebook strategies to generate users’ electronic word-of-mouth. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 73, 605–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.; Moon, J.; Kim, Y.J.; Yi, M.Y. Antecedents and consequences of mobile phone usability: Linking simplicity and interactivity to satisfaction, trust, and brand loyalty. Inf. Manag. 2015, 52, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, D.; Jayaraman, K.; Kamal, S.B.M. A conceptual model of interactive hotel website: The role of perceived website interactivity and customer perceived value toward website revisit intention. Procedia Econ. Finance 2016, 37, 170–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kent, C.; Laslo, E.; Rafaeli, S. Interactivity in online discussions and learning outcomes. Comput. Educ. 2016, 97, 116–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, T.J.; Kaye, B.K. Some like it lots: The influence of interactivity and reliance on credibility. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, R.A. Consumer behavior as risk taking. In Proceedings of the 43rd National Conference of the American Marketing Assocation, Chicago, IL, USA, 15–17 June 1960. [Google Scholar]
- Featherman, M.S.; Pavlou, P.A. Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2003, 59, 451–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malhotra, N.K.; Kim, S.S.; Agarwal, J. Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inf. Syst. Res. 2004, 15, 336–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Heijden, H.; Verhagen, T.; Creemers, M. Understanding online purchase intentions: Contributions from technology and trust perspectives. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2003, 12, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, D.T.; Pearson, J.M. Integrating website usability with the electronic commerce acceptance model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2011, 30, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.H.; Huang, J.W. Applying theory of perceived risk and technology acceptance model in the online shopping channel. Int. J. Bus. Econ. Finance Manag. 2009, 53, 919–925. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, H.P.; Hsu, C.L.; Hsu, H.Y. An empirical study of the effect of perceived risk upon intention to use online applications. Inf. Manag. Comput. Secur. 2005, 13, 106–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Q.; Chan, A.H.; Chen, K. Personal and other factors affecting acceptance of smartphone technology by older Chinese adults. Appl. Ergon. 2016, 54, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hsieh, J.P.-A.; Rai, A.; Keil, M. Understanding digital inequality: Comparing continued use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged. MIS Q. 2008, 97–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Sykes, T.A. Digital divide initiative success in developing countries: A longitudinal field study in a Village in India. Inf. Syst. Res. 2013, 24, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnard, Y.; Bradley, M.D.; Hodgson, F.; Lloyd, A.D. Learning to use new technologies by older adults: Perceived difficulties, experimentation behavior and usability. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 1715–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, C.; Chen, J.-L.; Yen, D.C. Theory of planning behavior (TPB) and customer satisfaction in the continued use of e-service: An integrated model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2007, 23, 2804–2822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, S.J.; Thong, J.Y.L.; Tam, K.Y. Understanding continued information technology usage behavior: A comparison of three models in the context of mobile internet. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1819–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, S.; Todd, P.A. Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 1995, 6, 144–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Madden, T.J. Prediction of goal-directed behavior-attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral-control. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 22, 453–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, J.; Zahedi, F.M. A theoretical approach to web design in e-commerce: A belief reinforcement model. Manag. Sci. 2005, 51, 1219–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKnight, D.H.; Choudhury, V.; Kacmar, C. The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: A trust building model. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2002, 11, 297–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, C. The effects of national culture values on consumer acceptance of e-commerce: Online shoppers in China. Inf. Manag. 2009, 46, 294–301. [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]
- Harrison-Walker, L.J. The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. J. Serv. Res. 2001, 4, 60–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrei, A.G. A word-of-mouse approach for word-of-mouth measurement. USV Ann. Econ. Public Adm. 2013, 12, 87–93. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, W.G.; Han, J.S.; Lee, E. Effects of relationship marketing on repeat purchase and word of mouth. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2001, 25, 272–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, J. Voice, exit, and negative word-of-mouth behaviors: An investigation across three service categories. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1990, 18, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Mena, J.A. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 414–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Straub, D. A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Q. 2012, 36, iii–xiv. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, I.R.R.; Kwan, E.; Thomas, D.R.; Cedzynski, M. Two new methods for estimating structural equation models: An illustration and a comparison with two established methods. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2011, 28, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Bagozzi, R.P. Causal Models in Marketing; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I. Psychological Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; Mackenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S.; Osterlind, S.J. Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed.; Allyn & Bacon: Needham Height, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, C.-W.; Benbasat, I.; Cenfetelli, R.T. IT-mediated customer service content and delivery in electronic governments: An empirical investigation of the antecedents of service quality. MIS Q. 2013, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowen, D.E.; Schneider, B. Services marketing and management-implications for organizational-behavior. Res. Organ. Behav. 1988, 10, 43–80. [Google Scholar]
- Egea, J.M.O.; González, M.V.R. Explaining physicians’ acceptance of EHCR systems: An extension of TAM with trust and risk factors. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 319–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, C.; Gu, D.; Tao, F.; Jain, H.K.; Zhao, Y.; Ding, B. Influence of mechanism of patient-accessible hospital information system implementation on doctor–patient relationships: A service fairness perspective. Inf. Manag. 2016, 54, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ong, C.-S.; Lai, J.-Y.; Wang, Y.-S. Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Inf. Manag. 2004, 41, 795–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheng, D.F.; Sun, J.J. A Review of the Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Foreign Virtual Community Environments. Inf. Sci. 2016, 34, 166–172. [Google Scholar]
- Marx, K.A.; Stanley, I.H.; Van, H.K.; Moody, J.; Alonzi, D.; Hansen, B.R.; Gitlin, L.N. Knowing versus doing: Education and training needs of staff in a chronic care hospital unit for individuals with dementia. J. Gerontol. Nurs. 2014, 40, 36–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, K.Z.K.; Cheung, C.M.K.; Lee, M.K.O. Examining the moderating effect of inconsistent reviews and its gender differences on consumers’ online shopping decision. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014, 34, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, D.X.; Zhang, Y.; Gu, Z.Z. Research on positive public opinion information dissemination model of social network based on expectation confirmation theory. Inf. Sci. 2016, 34, 29–34. [Google Scholar]
Construct | Item ID | Items | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Confirmation of MIHS performance expectations | CPE01 | My experience with using MIHS was better than what I expected. | Hong et al., 2006 [73] |
CPE02 | The service level provided by MIHS was better than what I expected. | ||
CPE03 | The service level provided by MIHS are really same as what I expected. | ||
CPE04 | Overall, most of my expectations from using MIHS were confirmed. | ||
Facilitating Conditions | FC01 | I have the resources necessary to use the MIHS system. | Ajzen 1991 [74]; Taylor and Todd 1995 [75] |
FC02 | I have the knowledge necessary to use the MIHS system. | ||
FC03 | Given the resources, opportunities and knowledge it takes to use the MIHS system, it would be easy for me to use the system. | ||
Intention to continued use of MIHS | ICU01 | I intend to continue using MIHS frequently during the next three months. | Ajzen 1991 [74]; Ajzen and Madden 1986 [76] |
ICU02 | I intend to continue using MIHS for online registration, bills checking, consultation, evaluations, and etc. during the next three months. | ||
Perceived interactivity | PI01 | MIHS allows me to interact with it to receive various health service or communicate with others. | Song and Zahedi, 2005 [77] |
PI02 | MIHS has interactive features, which help me accomplish my task. | ||
PI03 | I can interact with the MIHS system in order to get specific information or provide feedback/evaluation. | ||
Perceived risk | PR01 | I think it is risky to provide my personal information in the MIHS system. | McKnight, et al., 2002 [78] |
PR02 | I think it is risky to input my bank card information for registration, bill paying or prepaid. | ||
PR03 | Entering personal information over the MIHS system is unsafe | ||
Perceived usefulness | PU01 | The MIHS system is useful for searching and obtain the information I need. | Yoon, 2009 [79]; Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004 [80] |
PU02 | The MIHS system enhances my effectiveness in obtaining healthcare service. | ||
PU03 | The MIHS system enables me to get healthcare service faster. | ||
PU04 | Using MIHS system will improve my performance. | ||
PU05 | Using MIHS system will increase my productivity during health service process. | ||
Patient Satisfaction with MIHS | PS01 | I am pleased with my use of MIHS system. | Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004 [80] |
PS02 | I am satisfied with my use of MIHS system. | ||
Electronic word-of-mouth (WOM) | WOM01 | I am willingness to recommend MIHS to others. | Harrison-Walker, 2001 [81]; Anderson, 1998 [4]; Andrei, 2013 [82]; Kim, et al., 2001 [83]; Singh, 1990 [84] |
WOM02 | Exactly I will tell the other person that MIHS is very good. | ||
WOM03 | I am willing to tell other people about the good aspects of MIHS. | ||
WOM04 | Told my friends and relatives about my good experience of using MIHS. | ||
WOM05 | I will mention this good service of MIHS to others quite frequently. | ||
WOM06 | I will tell more people about the service of MIHS. | ||
WOM07 | I am proud to tell others that I use MIHS service. |
Category | Number (%) |
---|---|
Gender | |
Male | 253 (51.21%) |
Female | 241 (48.79%) |
Age | |
<18 years old | 4 (0.81%) |
18–28 years old | 103 (20.85%) |
28–48 years old | 169 (34.21%) |
48–60 years old | 103 (20.85%) |
>60 years old | 115 (23.28%) |
Educational background | |
Elementary school | 62 (12.55%) |
Middle school | 123 (24.90%) |
High school | 135 (27.33%) |
College | 162 (32.79%) |
Graduate school | 12 (02.43%) |
Types of interaction, use duration with MIHS (multi-choices) | |
Consultations about registration, card opening, prepay | 456 (92.31%) |
Consultation about bills (avg. use duration of this function: 23.4 months) | 471 (95.34%) |
Satisfaction Evaluations (avg. use duration of this function: 20.7 months) | 429 (86.84%) |
Consulting individual diseases with medical staff (avg. use duration of this function: 19.9 months) | 415 (84.01%) |
Others such as appointment cancelling, nursing consultation, etc. (avg. use duration of this function: 21.3 months) | 436 (87.85%) |
Treatment duration days | |
Outpatient | 32 (06.48%) |
Inpatient <5 days | 96 (19.43%) |
Inpatient 6–10 days | 156 (31.58%) |
Inpatient 11–20 days | 133 (26.92%) |
Inpatient >20 days | 77 (15.59%) |
Construct | Item Statistics | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Construct Items | Mean | Std. Deviation | Loading 1 | |
Confirmation of MIHS performance expectations | CPE01 | 5.60 | 1.23 | 0.7951 |
CPE02 | 5.44 | 1.24 | 0.8270 | |
CPE03 | 5.61 | 1.23 | 0.8508 | |
CPE04 | 5.78 | 1.19 | 0.8730 | |
Facilitating conditions | FC01 | 5.46 | 1.49 | 0.7480 |
FC02 | 5.65 | 1.38 | 0.8544 | |
FC03 | 5.69 | 1.38 | 0.8572 | |
Intention to continued use of MIHS | ICU01 | 5.69 | 1.20 | 0.8950 |
ICU02 | 5.62 | 1.29 | 0.8848 | |
Perceived interactivity | PI01 | 5.77 | 1.20 | 0.8293 |
PI02 | 5.86 | 1.19 | 0.8662 | |
PI03 | 5.65 | 1.28 | 0.8163 | |
Perceived risk | PR01 | 3.41 | 1.93 | 0.8708 |
PR02 | 4.12 | 2.04 | 0.8440 | |
PR03 | 3.86 | 1.91 | 0.7674 | |
Perceived usefulness | PU01 | 6.07 | 1.10 | 0.8150 |
PU02 | 6.02 | 1.10 | 0.7965 | |
PU03 | 6.02 | 1.05 | 0.8435 | |
PU04 | 5.93 | 1.16 | 0.8177 | |
PU05 | 5.83 | 1.18 | 0.7494 | |
Patient satisfaction with MIHS | PS01 | 5.75 | 1.45 | 0.8950 |
PS02 | 5.63 | 1.46 | 0.8848 | |
Electronic word-of-mouth(WOM) | WOM01 | 5.99 | 1.18 | 0.7999 |
WOM02 | 6.17 | 1.06 | 0.7809 | |
WOM03 | 6.04 | 1.09 | 0.8258 | |
WOM04 | 5.71 | 1.23 | 0.7823 | |
WOM05 | 5.88 | 1.17 | 0.8102 | |
WOM06 | 6.06 | 1.07 | 0.8084 | |
WOM07 | 5.74 | 1.20 | 0.7869 |
Composite Reliability | Cronbach’s Alpha | AVE 1 | CPE | FC | ICU | PI | PR | PU | PS | WOM | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CPE | 0.8812 | 0.7981 | 0.7121 | 0.8439 | |||||||
FC | 0.8705 | 0.7769 | 0.6916 | 0.7992 | 0.8316 | ||||||
ICU | 0.8839 | 0.7374 | 0.7919 | 0.6429 | 0.6063 | 0.8899 | |||||
PI | 0.8756 | 0.788 | 0.7013 | 0.677 | 0.6183 | 0.7159 | 0.8374 | ||||
PR | 0.8676 | 0.7812 | 0.6865 | −0.2154 | −0.2115 | −0.2218 | −0.2235 | 0.8286 | |||
PU | 0.8995 | 0.851 | 0.6912 | 0.6546 | 0.5965 | 0.6918 | 0.7817 | −0.1018 | 0.8314 | ||
PS | 0.9003 | 0.7786 | 0.8187 | 0.8016 | 0.7924 | 0.6238 | 0.6539 | −0.1842 | 0.6277 | 0.9048 | |
WOM | 0.9294 | 0.9134 | 0.6221 | 0.7336 | 0.6848 | 0.6561 | 0.7174 | −0.1365 | 0.7887 | 0.7199 | 0.7887 |
Hypothesized Path | t-Value | Results |
---|---|---|
H1: Patient satisfaction with MIHS → WOM | 13.244 ** | Supported |
H2: Intention to continued use of MIHS → WOM | 8.194 ** | Supported |
H3: Patient satisfaction with MIHS → Intention to continue use of MIHS | 2.041 * | Supported |
H4: Confirmation of MIHS performance expectation → Patient satisfaction with MIHS | 20.086 ** | Supported |
H5: Confirmation of MIHS performance expectation → Perceived usefulness | 5.021 ** | Supported |
H6: Perceived usefulness → Patient satisfaction with MIHS | 4.606 ** | Supported |
H7: Perceived usefulness → Intention to continued use of MIHS | 4.861 ** | Supported |
H8: Perceived interactivity → Perceived usefulness | 13.77 ** | Supported |
H9: Perceived interactivity → Intention to continued use of MIHS | 4.799 ** | Supported |
H10: Perceived risk → Intention to continued use of MIHS | 2.484 * | Supported |
H11: Facilitation conditions → Intention to continued use of MIHS | 2.166 * | Supported |
© 2018 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gu, D.; Yang, X.; Li, X.; Jain, H.K.; Liang, C. Understanding the Role of Mobile Internet-Based Health Services on Patient Satisfaction and Word-of-Mouth. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091972
Gu D, Yang X, Li X, Jain HK, Liang C. Understanding the Role of Mobile Internet-Based Health Services on Patient Satisfaction and Word-of-Mouth. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(9):1972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091972
Chicago/Turabian StyleGu, Dongxiao, Xuejie Yang, Xingguo Li, Hemant K. Jain, and Changyong Liang. 2018. "Understanding the Role of Mobile Internet-Based Health Services on Patient Satisfaction and Word-of-Mouth" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 9: 1972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091972
APA StyleGu, D., Yang, X., Li, X., Jain, H. K., & Liang, C. (2018). Understanding the Role of Mobile Internet-Based Health Services on Patient Satisfaction and Word-of-Mouth. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 1972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091972