MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385705991 · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2232977

Continued Intention of mHealth Care Applications among the Elderly: An Enabler and Inhibitor Perspective

2023· article· en· W4385705991 on OpenAlexaff
Urvashi Tandon, Myriam Ertz, Shashi Shashi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthUsabilityeHealthEnablingHealth carePsychologyApplied psychologyComputer sciencePsychological interventionPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal healthcare provision for the elderly is increasingly possible via real-time health indicators’ data generated by mHealth care applications. Yet, these apps require continuous utilization, which remains problematic. This research examines gamification, usability, as well as empathetic cooperation and social interaction (ESCI) as enablers whereas inertia, sunk cost, transition cost, perceived risk, and technological anxiety are validated as inhibitors of mHealth care applications continued usage intention. Drawing on self-determination theory (SDT) and the Health IT Usability Evaluation Model (Health-ITUEM), the study also validates engagement as an influencer of continued intention. The sample comprised 643 older adults using mHealth care applications and residing in North Indian states. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was applied to assess and validate the hypothesized relationships. The results confirmed that usability strongly impacted engagement, followed by gamification and ESCI. Conversely, perceived risk emerged as the strongest inhibitor, followed by sunk cost, technological anxiety, and transition cost. Interestingly, Inertia had a positive and significant impact on engagement. This research is an initial endeavor to understand enablers and inhibitors of mHealth care applications (mHealth care apps) concerning older adults. The model that emerged from this study would provide valuable insights by validating various significant issues to generate engagement of the elderly towards mHealth care apps.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Human-Computer InteractionSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207