Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32496204›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Influence of the Business Revenue, Recommendation, and Provider Models on Mobile Health App Adoption: Three-Country Experimental Vignette Study.

Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva, Frans Folkvord, Mariek Vanden Abeele

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Adoption of Digital Therapeutics in Europe.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Francisco Lupiáñez-VillanuevaDepartement of Information and Communication Science, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5361-7678
Frans FolkvordOpen Evidence Research, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7602-3792
Mariek Vanden AbeeleTilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1806-6991
Tilburg University · NLUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the worldwide growth in mobile health (mHealth) tools and the possible benefits of mHealth for patients and health care providers, scientific research examining factors explaining the adoption level of mHealth tools remains scarce.

objectiveWe performed an experimental vignette study to investigate how four factors related to the business model of an mHealth app affect its adoption and users' willingness to pay: (1) the revenue model (ie, sharing data with third parties vs accepting advertisements); (2) the data protection model (General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR]-compliant data handling vs nonGDPR-compliant data handling); (3) the recommendation model (ie, doctor vs patient recommendation); and (4) the provider model (ie, pharmaceutical vs medical association provider). In addition, health consciousness, health information orientation, and electronic health literacy were explored as intrapersonal predictors of adoption.

methodsWe conducted an experimental study in three countries, Spain (N=800), Germany (N=800), and the Netherlands (N=416), to assess the influence of multiple business models and intrapersonal characteristics on the willingness to pay and intention to download a health app.

resultsThe revenue model did not affect willingness to pay or intentions to download the app in all three countries. In the Netherlands, data protection increased willingness to pay for the health app (P<.001). Moreover, in all three countries, data protection increased the likelihood of downloading the app (P<.001). In Germany (P=.04) and the Netherlands (P=.007), a doctor recommendation increased both willingness to pay and intention to download the health app. For all three countries, apps manufactured in association with a medical organization were more likely to be downloaded (P<.001). Finally, in all three countries, men, younger individuals, those with higher levels of education, and people with a health information orientation were willing to pay more for adoption of the health app and had a higher intention to download the app.

conclusionsThe finding that people want their data protected by legislation but are not willing to pay more for data protection suggests that in the context of mHealth, app privacy protection cannot be leveraged as a selling point. However, people do value a doctor recommendation and apps manufactured by a medical association, which particularly influence their intention to download an mHealth app.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsTelemedicineAdultFemaleGermanyHumansMaleNetherlandsSpainbusiness modeldata protectioneHealth literacyexperimenthealth consciousnesshealth information orientationmHealth adoptionmobile appsprivacy paradoxrecommendationself-monitoring

Identifiers

PMID32496204
PMCPMC7303831
OpenAlexW3028815527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.