ArticleF1000Research2026
Trust as an Omnichannel-to-Advocacy Transmission Mechanism in Mandatory Health care Services: Empirical Evidence from Indonesia.
Article in F1000Research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In Indonesia, omnichannel integration in healthcare is intensifying, yet the psychological mechanisms that convert omnichannel integration into patient advocacy remain insufficiently understood, particularly in mandatory healthcare settings characterised by credence-service properties, high perceived risk, and constrained choice. This study uses the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) framework to examine brand trust as a mediating mechanism linking omnichannel integration to brand advocacy. Methods: Data were collected from 230 patients across three health care facilities in Jakarta and Tangerang through questionnaires validated via forward translation, back translation, face validity, content validity, and pre-testing. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) with 5,000 bootstrap subsamples, supplemented by cross-loading evaluation, heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) inference, model comparison, and demographic control variables, was used for analysis. Results: Omnichannel integration was positively associated with brand trust (β = 0.715; p < 0.001) and brand advocacy (β = 0.671; p < 0.001). However, the direct effect of omnichannel integration on brand advocacy was not significant (β = 0.019; p = 0.793). The indirect effect of brand trust was significant (β = 0.480; 95% confidence interval [0.372, 0.586]), indicating a full mediation pattern (variance accounted for = 96.2%). After controlling for age, gender, and education, core relationships remained stable, and the model explained 46.8% of the variance in brand advocacy. Conclusions: These findings suggest that omnichannel integration is primarily associated with patient advocacy in mandatory health care services through trust. However, because this study does not directly compare service contexts, any inference regarding differences from conventional retail should be interpreted cautiously.
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.