MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285202590 · doi:10.4236/etsn.2022.112005

Consumer Risk Perceptions in Mobile Health Services Adoption: Do They Matter?

2022· article· en· W4285202590 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueE-Health Telecommunication Systems and Networks · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk perceptionBusinessContext (archaeology)Mobile serviceMarketingPerceptionService (business)ObstacleHealth promotionVariance (accounting)Environmental healthPsychologyPublic healthMedicineGeographyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to investigate empirically the role of consumer perceived risks in the adoption of mobile health services. A theoretical model including the perceived risk associated with the activity targeted by a mobile health service and the perceived risk associated with the mobile service itself was developed and tested empirically in the context of an application supporting smoking cessation. The model was validated in a cross-sectional experiment conducted with 422 consumers in the UK and Canada. Findings show that while risk triggered by the nature of a health promotion activity is a strong driver of the adoption of the supporting mobile health service, risk related to the actual application targeting that activity is a comparatively weaker obstacle. The two contrasting risk perspectives are highly significant as they together explain over 31% of the variance in consumer intention to use the mobile health service, independently from other adoption factors. Overall, this study demonstrates that consumer risk perceptions alone are a multifaceted and meaningful component in mobile health services adoption, and that this element should not be overlooked in more complex research models.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.319 · 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