MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014377584 · doi:10.2196/16723

Factors Influencing Acceptance of Personal Health Record Apps for Workplace Health Promotion: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study

2020· article· en· W3014377584 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hyun Sang Park, Kwang Il Kim, Jae Young Soh, Young Ho Hyun, Sae-Kyun Jang, Sol Lee, Ga Young Hwang, Hwa Sun Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Trade, Industry and EnergyKorea Occupational Safety and Health Agency
KeywordsExpectancy theoryHealth careUnified theory of acceptance and use of technologyApplied psychologyHealth promotionAgency (philosophy)PsychologyMedicineNursingFamily medicinePublic healthSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health care technologies can help improve workers' health and productivity by supporting workplace health promotion. A personal health record app is used to manage medical data such as results from medical checkups, which facilitates decision making for medical personnel. However, an analysis of users' technology acceptance is required to provide appropriate services based on personal health record apps. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the factors influencing the behavioral intention of health experts and workers to use an app in workers' health centers and to examine differences in their perception of the main variables. METHODS: The study involved health experts and workers who visited 21 workers' health centers in Korea to verify a research model in which perceived risk was added to the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, a representative theory of information technology acceptance. After receiving ethical approval from the Korea National Institute for Bioethics Policy, 1050 questionnaires were distributed over 7 weeks with cooperation of the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency. A multiple linear regression analysis and multigroup path analysis were performed to verify the hypotheses, and independent samples t tests were performed to analyze differences between workers' and health experts' perception of the main variables. RESULTS: The analysis included data from 866 respondents (687 workers and 179 health experts). Effort expectancy (beta=.08, P=.03), social influence (beta=.43, P<.001), performance expectancy (beta=.07, P=.008), and facilitating conditions (beta=.13, P<.001) exerted significant positive effects on behavioral intention, whereas perceived risk (beta=-.29, P<.001) exerted a significant negative effect on behavioral intention. Performance expectancy had a significant effect on path differences depending on gender (critical ratio=-3.38) and age (critical ratio=1.97). Workers' mean scores for the main variables were higher relative to those of health experts for all remaining variables except perceived risk, and significant differences were observed for all remaining variables except facilitating condition. CONCLUSIONS: Social influence exerted the strongest effect on behavioral intention to use the personal health record app. Consequently, it is necessary to coordinate health promotion activities in the workplace as well as the operational direction of community institutions such as in workers' health centers to allow workers to manage their own health via continuous use of the app. In addition, the app should be developed based on a requirement analysis of the balance between both interest groups in consideration of differences in perspective between consumers and service providers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207