MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387679378 · doi:10.2196/46624

Factors Influencing the Behavioral Intentions and Use Behaviors of Telemedicine in Patients With Diabetes: Web-Based Survey Study

2023· article· en· W4387679378 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huige Shao, Chaoyuan Liu, Li Tang, Bian Wang, Hebin Xie, Yiyu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelemedicineLogistic regressionMedicineExpectancy theoryDiabetes mellitusStructural equation modelingDiscriminant validityClinical psychologyHealth careGerontologyPsychologyPsychometricsSocial psychologyInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has great potential for diabetes management. The COVID-19 pandemic has boosted the development of telemedicine. However, the factors influencing the behavioral intentions to use and use behaviors of telemedicine in patients with diabetes in China are not clear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand the determinants of behavioral intention to use telemedicine based on an extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model and to identify demographic factors associated with telemedicine use in patients with diabetes in China. METHODS: Patients with diabetes who are aged ≥18 years were surveyed from February 1 to February 7, 2023. We distributed the survey link in 3 WeChat groups including a total of 988 patients with diabetes from the outpatient department or patients discharged from Changsha Central Hospital. Structural equation modeling was used to understand the determinants of behavioral intention. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the demographic factors associated with telemedicine use. RESULTS: In total, 514 questionnaires were collected. Of the respondents, 186 (36.2%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. The measurement model showed acceptable reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and data fit indices. The model explained 63.8% of the variance in behavioral intention. Social influence, performance expectancy, and facilitating conditions positively influenced behavioral intention (β=.463, P<.001; β=.153, P=.02; and β=.257, P=.004, respectively). Perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, and effort expectancy had no significant impact on behavioral intention (all P>.05). The overall use of telemedicine was 20.6% (104/514). After adjusting for the behavioral intention score, the multivariate regression analysis showed that age, education, and family income were associated with telemedicine use. Telemedicine use was higher in the 40 to 59 years and 18 to 39 years age groups than in the ≥60 years age group (odds ratio [OR] 4.35, 95% CI 1.84-10.29, P=.001; OR 9.20, 95% CI 3.40-24.88, P<.001, respectively). Telemedicine use was higher in the senior high school and the university and more groups than in junior high school education and less group (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.05-5.73, P=.04; OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.11-6.23, P=.03, respectively). Patients with a higher family income used telemedicine more often than the patients who had an annual family income ≤¥10,000 (CNY ¥1=US $0.1398; ¥10,000-¥50,000 group: OR 3.90, 95% CI 1.21-12.51, P=.02; ¥50,000-¥100,000 group: OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.19-12.79, P=.02; >¥100,000 group: OR 4.63, 95% CI 1.41-15.27, P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Social influence, performance expectancy, and facilitating conditions positively affected the behavioral intention of patients with diabetes to use telemedicine. Young patients, highly educated patients, and patients with high family income use telemedicine more often. Promoting behavioral intention and paying special attention to the needs of older adult patients, patients with low income, and patients with low levels of education are needed to encourage telemedicine use.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207