ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
A choice based conjoint analysis of mobile healthcare application preferences among physicians, patients, and individuals.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid proliferation of healthcare service applications (apps) makes it challenging for consumers to determine the best one for their needs, prompting the Korean government to introduce an accreditation program to verify app safety. This study aims to identify the factors influencing the choice of healthcare service apps among physicians, patients with chronic diseases, and healthy individuals. We conducted a choice-based conjoint analysis with six factors (number of studies on effectiveness, frequency of information delivery, cybersecurity and data safety, user satisfaction, accreditation, and costs). 1,093 participants (407 healthy individuals, 589 patients, and 97 physicians) participated in the online survey. Across all groups, cybersecurity and data safety were the most important preference factors (healthy individuals: β = 2.127, 95% CI 2.096-2.338, patients: β = 1.569, 95% CI 1.481-1.658, physicians: β = 1.111, 95% CI 0.908-1.314). All groups were willing to pay more approximately $12 for high cybersecurity and data safety compared to low.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.