The aim of this study is to investigate the relationships between image, output quality, perceived self-efficacy, result demonstrability and Generation Y’s behavioural intention to use mobile health applications. Research data are gathered from a sample of 120 Generation Y participants in Malaysia. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) is employed to examine the influences of image, output quality, perceived self-efficacy and result demonstrability on behavioural intention to use mobile health applications. The results demonstrate that output quality and result demonstrability are potential predictors of behavioural intention to use mobile health applications. However, there is no significant relationship between image, perceived self-efficacy and behavioural intention. This study contributes to the body of knowledge focused on a better understanding of the behavioural intention of younger generations to adopt and use mobile health applications. Current research provides developers of mobile health applications and healthcare professionals with useful insights into how the adoption rate of mobile health applications can be enhanced.
AgarwalR., & PrasadJ. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies?Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361–391.
2.
AggelidisV., & ChatzoglouP. (2009). Using a modified technology acceptance model in hospitals. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78(2), 115–126.
3.
AhlanA., & AhmadB. (2015). An overview of patient acceptance of health information technology in developing countries: A review and conceptual model. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 3(1), 29–48.
4.
AltmannV., & GriesM. (2017). Factors influencing the usage intention of mHealth apps: An empirical study on the example of Sweden (Master’s thesis). Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden.
5.
BajpaiS., & BajpaiR. (2014). Goodness of measurement: Reliability and validity. International Journal of Medical Science and Public Health, 3(1), 173–176.
6.
BanduraA. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1(4), 237–269.
7.
CalisirF., GumussoyC., BayraktarogluA., & KaraaliD. (2014). Predicting the intention to use a web-based learning system: Perceived content quality, anxiety, perceived system quality, image, and the technology acceptance model. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 24(5), 515–531.
8.
ChandraS., SrivastavaS., & ThengY.-L. (2010). Evaluating the role of trust in consumer adoption of mobile payment systems: An empirical analysis. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 27(1), 561–588.
9.
ChauP., & HuP.-H. (2002). Investigating healthcare professionals’ decision to accept telemedicine technology: An empirical test of competing theories. Information & Management, 39(4), 297–311.
10.
ChengT., LamD., & YeungA. (2006). Adoption of internet banking: An empirical study in Hong Kong. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1558–1572.
11.
ChismarW., & PattonS. (2003). Does the extended technology acceptance model apply to physicians. In Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’03) (p.160.1, Vol. 6). IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, USA. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261264910
12.
ChuM. M. (2018, November2), Budget 2019: Health services get RM2bil increase in allocation, enjoying largest share of budget. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/11/02/budget-2019-health-services-get-rm2bil-increase-in-allocation-enjoying-largest-share-of-budget/
13.
CompeauD., & HigginsC. (1995a). Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 118–143.
14.
CompeauD., & HigginsC. (1995b). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.
15.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–336.
16.
DengZ., MoX., & LiuS. (2013). Comparison of the middle-aged and older users’ adoption of mobile health services in China. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83(3), 210–224.
17.
DwivediY., ShareefM., SimintirasA., LalB., & WeerakkodyV. (2016). A generalised adoption model for services: A cross-country comparison of mobile health (m-health). Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 174–187.
18.
Ernst & Young (2016). Decoding the Malaysian digital DNA: From smart to savvy. Retrieved from http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-decoding-the-malaysian-digital-dna-smart/$FILE/EY-decoding-the-malaysian-digital-dna-smart.pdf
19.
FishbeinM., & AjzenI. (1975). Belief, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
20.
GreeneE. (2003). Connecting with Generation Y. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 15(19), 31–37.
21.
HairJ., HultG., RingleC., & SarstedtM. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
22.
HussainM., ZaidanA., ZidanB., IqbalS., AhmedM., AlbahriO., & AlbahriA. (2018). Conceptual framework for the security of mobile health applications on android platform. Telematics and Informatics, 35(5), 1335–1354.
23.
IsakovitM., SedlarU., VolkM., & BešterJ. (2016). Usability pitfalls of diabetes mHealth apps for the elderly. Journal of Diabetes Research, 2016(2), 1–9.
24.
KayyaliR., PeletidiA., IsmailM., HashimZ., BandeiraP., & BonnahJ. (2017). Awareness and use of mHealth apps: A study from England. Pharmacy, 5(33), 1–14.
25.
KimJ., & ParkH.-A. (2012). Development of a health information technology acceptance model using consumers’ health behavior intention. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(5), e133.
26.
KockN. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10.
27.
KockN., & LynnG. S. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information System, 13(7), 546–580.
28.
KummerT.-F., SchaferK., & TodorovaN. (2013). Acceptance of hospital nurses toward sensor-based medication systems: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 50(4), 508–517.
29.
LalitaphanitK., & TheeraroungchaisriA. (2016). Factors affecting community pharmacy customers’ decision to use personal health records via smartphone. Thai Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (TJPS), 40, 163–167.
30.
LongC., HameedM., LeeD., LaiP., HadiM., Al-WorafiY., & KhanT. (2016). Use of medical mobile applications among hospital pharmacists in Malaysia. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 50(4), 1–8.
31.
McGillicuddyJ., WeilandA., FrenzelR., MuellerM., JacksonB., TaberD. J., … TreiberF. (2013). Patient attitudes toward mobile phone-based health monitoring: Questionnaire study among kidney transplant recipients. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(1), e6.
32.
MelznerJ., HeinzeJ., & FritschT. (2014). Mobile health applications in workplace health promotion: An integrated conceptual adoption framework. Procedia Technology, 16, 1374–1382.
33.
Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2017). 2018 budget. Putrajaya: Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia.
34.
Ministry of Health Malaysia (2017, November). Health facts 2017. Retrieved from http://www.moh.gov.my/images/gallery/publications/HEALTH%20FACTS%202017.pdf
35.
MooreG., & BenbasatI. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.
36.
NamC., BahnS., & LeeR. (2013). Acceptance of assistive technology by special education teachers: A structural equation model approach. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 29(5), 365–377.
37.
NdayizigamiyeP., & MaharajM. (2016). The determinants of mobile health in Burundi. The African Journal of Information Systems, 9(3), 171–191.
38.
NwoliseC. H., CareyN., & ShaweJ. (2017). Exploring the acceptability and feasibility of a preconception and diabetes information app for women with pregestational diabetes: A mixed-methods study protocol. Digital Health, 3, 1–11. doi. 10.1177/2055207617726418jourmals.sagepub.com/home/dhj.
39.
OkazakiS., BlasS., & CastañedaJ. (2015). Physicians’ adoption of mobile health monitoring system in spain: Competing models and impact of prior experience. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 16(3), 194–217.
40.
OkumusB., BilgihanA., & OzturkA. (2016). Factors affecting the acceptance of smartphone diet applications. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 25(6), 726–747.
41.
OnnL. P. (2015). What lies ahead for Malaysian healthcare? (Economics Working Paper). ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute. Retrieved from https://www.iseas.edu.sg/images/pdf/ISEAS_EconomicsWorking_Paper_2015-04-01.pdf
42.
PfefferJ. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
43.
QaderI., & OmarA. (2015). Smart phones usage among the millennial generation in Malaysia. Journal of Scientific Research and Development, 2(14), 1–4.
44.
Research2Guidance (2017). mHealth app economics 2017: Current status and future trends in mobile health. Berlin: Research2Guidance.
45.
SangS., LeeJ.-D., & LeeJ. (2009). E-government adoption in ASEAN: The case of Cambodia. Internet Research, 19(5), 517–534.
46.
ScholtzB., MahmudI., & RamayahT. (2016). Does usability matter? An analysis of the impact of usability on technology acceptance in ERP setting. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge and Management, 11, 309–330.
47.
StrongD., DishawM., & BandyD. (2006). Extending task technology fit with computer self-efficacy. ACM SIGMIS, 37(2–3), 96–107.
48.
SullivanG. M., & FeinnR. (2012). Using effect size-or why the p value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282.
49.
The Star (2018, February14). Mobile cellular penetration reaches 131.8%. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com.my/business/businessnews/2018/02/14/mobile-cellularpenetration-reaches-1318/
50.
VeerA., PeetersJ., BrabersA., SchellevisF., RademakersJ., & FranckeA. (2015). Determinants of the intention to use e-Health by community dwelling older people. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 103.
51.
VenkateshV. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.
52.
VenkateshV., & BalaH. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
53.
VenkateshV., & DavisF. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
54.
VentolaC. L. (2014). Mobile devices and apps for health care professionals: Uses and benefits. Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 39(5), 356–364.
55.
WangB., ParkJ.-Y., ChungK., & ChoiI. (2014). Influential factors of smart health users according to usage experience and intention to use. Wireless Personal Communications, 79(4), 2671–2683.
56.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2011). mHealth: New horizons for health through mobile technologies: Second global survey on eHealth. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
57.
WuJ.-H., WangS.-C., & LinL.-M. (2007). Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: A structural equation model. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76(1), 66–77.
58.
YasiniM., BerangerJ., DesmaraisP., PerezL., & MarchandG. (2016). mHealth quality: A process to seal the qualified mobile health apps. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 228, 205–209.
59.
YuP., LiH., & GagnonM.-P. (2009). Health IT acceptance factors in long-term care facilities: A cross-sectional survey. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78(4), 219–229.
60.
ZhangH., CocosilaM., & ArcherN. (2010). Factors of adoption of mobile information technology by homecare nurses. Computers, Informatics, Nursing (CIN), 28(1), 49–56.
61.
ZhaoY., NiQ., & ZhouR. (2017). What factors influence the mobile health service adoption? A meta-analysis and the moderating role of age. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 1–9.
