The Mediating Role of Organizational Reputation and Trust in the Intention to Use Wearable Health Devices: Cross-Country Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of consumer wearable health devices for fitness tracking has seen an upward trend across the globe. Previous studies have shown that trust is an important factor in the adoption and use of new technologies. However, little is known about the influence of organizational reputation and trust on the intention to use wearable health devices. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the mediating role of organizational reputation and trust in the intention to use wearable health devices and to examine the extent to which the country of residence influenced the effect of organizational reputation on consumers' trust in and intention to use wearable health devices. METHODS: We conducted a cross-country survey with participants from Kenya and South Africa using a Google Forms questionnaire derived from previously validated items. A series of mediation regression analyses were carried out using the PROCESS macro with the bootstrap CI procedure. A one-way, between-group multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was also used to determine the key factors that distinguish Kenyans and South Africans in their intention to use wearable health devices. RESULTS: A total of 232 questionnaire responses were collected. The results revealed that organizational reputation significantly mediates the relationship between trust propensity and trust, with an indirect effect of 0.22 (95% CI 0.143-0.309). Organizational reputation also plays a significant direct role in the intention to use a wearable health device, with a direct effect of 0.32 (95% CI 0.175-0.483). This role is regardless of participants' country of residence. Furthermore, there is a significant mediating effect of trust on the relationship between trust propensity and the intention to use a wearable health device, with an indirect effect of 0.26 (95% CI 0.172-0.349); between perceived security and the intention to use a wearable health device, with an indirect effect of 0.36 (95% CI 0.255-0.461); and between perceived privacy and the intention to use a wearable health device, with an indirect effect of 0.42 (95% CI 0.282-0.557). The MANOVA test shows statistically significant differences in all variables for both groups, with the exception of organizational reputation where there is no significant difference between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational reputation has a significant direct influence on participants' trust in and the intention to use a wearable health device irrespective of their country of residence. Even in the presence of perceived security and perceived privacy, trust has a significant mediating effect on the intention to use a wearable health device.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".