ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Motivation Outweighs Barriers in Predicting Perceived Effectiveness of Virtual Home Health Care for Chronic Disease Management in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adoption of Virtual Home Health Care (VHHC) for chronic disease is shaped by competing motivations and barriers, yet these multi-select factors are rarely analyzed alongside effectiveness evaluations. Whether high trust in the clinician can coexist with doubt about the virtual format has not been examined in VHHC populations. Objective: To characterize the motivation and barrier endorsement patterns of VHHC users and their demographic correlates, and to determine the relative contribution of motivations and barriers to perceived effectiveness. A secondary aim examined provider-modality trust discordance (simultaneously trusting one's clinician while doubting the virtual modality) and its demographic correlates. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from a previously published study of 517 chronic disease patients in Saudi Arabia. Four motivation items and four barrier items (multi-select) were recoded into binary variables. Each of the 8 items was cross-tabulated with 4 demographic variables (gender, age, education, disease duration), yielding 32 chi-square tests. Perceived effectiveness was operationalized as the mean of 11 Likert-scaled items (Cronbach's α = 0.870). Hierarchical regression tested the incremental prediction of effectiveness by barrier count and motivation count, with non-parametric and ordinal sensitivity analyses. Trust discordance was operationalized as high provider trust (E2 ≥ 4) combined with accuracy-doubt endorsement. Results: Speed of access (69.4%) was the top motivation; accuracy doubt (63.4%) was the top barrier. Of the 32 chi-square tests, 11 reached statistical significance. The strongest association was between quality concern and education (Cramér's V = 0.243, p < 0.001), with postgraduates endorsing quality concerns at double the rate of high-school patients (68.4% vs 33.3%). In hierarchical regression, barrier count added negligible variance (ΔR Conclusion: VHHC adoption among chronic disease patients is associated with motivation intensity rather than barrier absence. The high prevalence of trust discordance (41.2%) suggests that provider trust and modality trust operate independently, with implications for targeted, multidisciplinary communication strategies.
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.