ArticleDigital health
Comparative analysis of digital health insurance platform adoption among urban-rural users: A UTAUT and financial literacy integration perspective.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Healthcare consumers' acceptance and use of digital health technology in LMICs and the role of self-efficacy and facilitating conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the determinants of digital health insurance platform adoption among urban and rural users. The study incorporates a financial literacy (FL) perspective in the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model to explore the effect of FL on users' adoption intentions. Methods: This study used a cross-sectional research design, utilising a sample of 389 urban and 323 rural users familiar with digital health insurance platform. Furthermore, this study employed partial least squares multi-group analysis (PLS-MGA) to examine the path differences between urban and rural groups. Results: The results revealed some differences in the factors that shape the willingness of urban and rural users to adopt digital health insurance platforms. Performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), social influence (SI), and FL positively affect the adoption intentions of rural and urban users. However, facilitating conditions only positively affect rural users' adoption intentions. Regarding the moderation effect, FL strengthens the effect of PE on adoption intentions for both urban and rural users. Interestingly, FL shows differences moderating role between urban and rural users in the relationship between EE and SI on adoption intentions. Implication: By introducing a FL perspective, this study addresses the lack of attention to FL in Insurtech studies. It provides a theoretical basis for the government and platform operators in formulating differentiated promotion strategies to help increase the popularity of health insurance in urban and rural areas.
Indexed as
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.