Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39854579›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Exploring real estate blockchain adoption: An empirical study based on an integrated task-technology fit and technology acceptance model.

Hailan Yang, Zixian Zhang, Chen Jian, Nisar Ahmad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Hailan YangSchool of Business, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Zixian ZhangSchool of Business, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Chen JianSchool of Business, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Nisar AhmadSchool of Management, University of Scienceand Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5900-2057

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although many organizations have adopted blockchain technology (BCT) for efficiency and automation and users' adoption of BCT is becoming crucial for the companies, few studies have focused on the factors affecting the adoption of BCT in real estate sector. This study aims to assess the factors affecting the adoption of BCT in real estate by the lens of an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Task-technology fit (TTF). This current study uses quantitative survey approach. Data were collected from 311 real sector buyers and sellers in China. Partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used for data analysis. The study's findings indicate that attitude, perceived usefulness (PU) and data privacy and security (DPS) exerts highest influence in the proposed theoretical model. In addition, the findings also confirmed the significant impact of perceived ease of use (PEOU) on attitude, and TTF impact on PU and PEOU in adoption of BCT. Furthermore, the moderating impact of perceived compatibility (PC) on the relationship between TTF and PEOU was also confirmed. The study has useful practical implications for the real estate buyers and sellers that adoption of BCT improves efficiency, reduce transaction cost incur due to intermediaries, and enhance security system. Furthermore, the study suggests that automation achieved through BCT will facilitate customized agreements and improve process of title transfer.

Indexed as

BlockchainTechnologyAdultChinaComputer SecurityFemaleHumansMaleModels, TheoreticalSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39854579
PMCPMC11760644

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.