Willingness to Use and Pay for Digital Health Care Services According to 4 Scenarios: Results from a National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smartphones and their associated technology have evolved to an extent where these devices can be used to provide digital health interventions. However, few studies have been conducted on the willingness to use (WTU) and willingness to pay (WTP) for digital health interventions. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate how previous service experience, the content of the services, and individuals' health status affect WTU and WTP. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide web-based survey in 3 groups: nonusers (n=506), public service users (n=368), and private service users (n=266). Participants read scenarios about an imagined health status (such as having a chronic illness) and the use of digital health intervention models (self-management, expert management, and medical management). They were then asked to respond to questions on WTU and WTP. RESULTS: Public service users had a greater intention to use digital health intervention services than nonusers and private service users: scenario A (health-risk situation and self-management), nonusers=odd ratio [OR] .239 (SE .076; P<.001) and private service users=OR .138 (SE .044; P<.001); scenario B (health-risk situation and expert management), nonusers=OR .175 (SE .040; P<.001) and private service users=OR .219 (SE .053; P<.001); scenario C (chronic disease situation and expert management), nonusers=OR .413 (SE .094; P<.001) and private service users=OR .401 (SE .098; P<.001); and scenario D (chronic disease situation and medical management), nonusers=OR .480 (SE .120; P=.003) and private service users=OR .345 (SE .089; P<.001). In terms of WTP, in scenarios A and B, those who used the public and private services had a higher WTP than those who did not (scenario A: β=-.397, SE .091; P<.001; scenario B: β=-.486, SE .098; P<.001). In scenario C, private service users had greater WTP than public service users (β=.264, SE .114; P=.02), whereas public service users had greater WTP than nonusers (β=-.336, SE .096; P<.001). In scenario D, private service users were more WTP for the service than nonusers (β=-.286, SE .092; P=.002). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed that the WTU and WTP for digital health interventions differed based on individuals' prior experience with health care services, health status, and demographics. Recently, many discussions have been made to expand digital health care beyond the early adapters and fully into people's daily lives. Thus, more understanding of people's awareness and acceptance of digital health care is needed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".