title: Understanding determinants of consumer mobile health usage intentions, assimilation, and channel preferences.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Consumer use of mobile devices as health service delivery aids (mHealth) is growing, especially as smartphones become ubiquitous. However, questions remain as to how consumer traits, health perceptions, situational characteristics, and demographics may affect consumer mHealth usage intentions, assimilation, and channel preferences.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  We examine how consumers' personal innovativeness toward mobile services (PIMS), perceived health conditions, health care availability, health care utilization, demographics, and socioeconomic status affect their (1) mHealth usage intentions and extent of mHealth assimilation, and (2) preference for mHealth as a complement or substitute for in-person doctor visits.
  
  
  METHODS
  Leveraging constructs from research in technology acceptance, technology assimilation, consumer behavior, and health informatics, we developed a cross-sectional online survey to study determinants of consumers' mHealth usage intentions, assimilation, and channel preferences. Data were collected from 1132 nationally representative US consumers and analyzed by using moderated multivariate regressions and ANOVA.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The results indicate that (1) 430 of 1132 consumers in our sample (37.99%) have started using mHealth, (2) a larger quantity of consumers are favorable to using mHealth as a complement to in-person doctor visits (758/1132, 66.96%) than as a substitute (532/1132, 47.00%), and (3) consumers' PIMS and perceived health conditions have significant positive direct influences on mHealth usage intentions, assimilation, and channel preferences, and significant positive interactive influences on assimilation and channel preferences. The independent variables within the moderated regressions collectively explained 59.70% variance in mHealth usage intentions, 60.41% in mHealth assimilation, 34.29% in preference for complementary use of mHealth, and 45.30% in preference for substitutive use of mHealth. In a follow-up ANOVA examination, we found that those who were more favorable toward using mHealth as a substitute for in-person doctor visits than as a complement indicated stronger intentions to use mHealth (F₁,₇₀₂=20.14, P<.001) and stronger assimilation of mHealth (F₁,₇₀₂=41.866, P<.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Multiple predictors are shown to have significant associations with mHealth usage intentions, assimilation, and channel preferences. We suggest that future initiatives to promote mHealth should shift targeting of consumers from coarse demographics to nuanced considerations of individual dispositions toward mobile service innovations, complementary or substitutive channel use preferences, perceived health conditions, health services availability and utilization, demographics, and socioeconomic characteristics.
authors.affiliation: Center for Process Innovation and Department of Computer Information Systems, J Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA. arunrai@gsu.edu
authors.forename: Arun
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Rai
authors.forename: Liwei
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Jessica
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Pye
authors.forename: Aaron
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Baird
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D040421:Cell Phone; D003256:Community Participation; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008838:Microcomputers; D008875:Middle Aged; D008962:Models, Theoretical
keywords: adoption; consumer preferences; health information technology; mobile health; multivariate analyses
references.citation: J Health Commun. 2012;17 Suppl 1:73-81
references.pmid: 22548602
references.citation: Am J Prev Med. 2008 Aug;35(2):177-81
references.pmid: 18550322
references.citation: J Am Coll Surg. 2001 Apr;192(4):447-52
references.pmid: 11294400
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2013 Jan 25;15(1):e17
references.pmid: 23353680
references.citation: J Appl Psychol. 2001 Feb;86(1):114-21
references.pmid: 11302223
references.citation: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Sep-Oct;19(5):683
references.pmid: 22879365
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2012 Jan 12;14(1):e3
references.pmid: 22262730
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2012 May 08;14(3):e70
references.pmid: 22564332
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2012 Oct 02;14(5):e129
references.pmid: 23032424
references.citation: Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Feb;29(2):264-7
references.pmid: 20348071
references.citation: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jul-Aug;16(4):550-60
references.pmid: 19390112
references.citation: Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012 Aug 28;1(1):33
references.pmid: 22929000
references.citation: BMJ. 2000 Jun 24;320(7251):1713-6
references.pmid: 10864552
references.citation: Lancet. 2011 Jul 2;378(9785):49-55
references.pmid: 21722952
references.citation: Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Feb;29(2):252-8
references.pmid: 20348069
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2004 Jan 20;6(1):e2
references.pmid: 15111268
references.citation: Telemed J E Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;18(6):464-9
references.pmid: 22732025
references.citation: JAMA. 2002 Nov 20;288(19):2469-75
references.pmid: 12435261
references.citation: Health Educ Q. 1984 Spring;11(1):1-47
references.pmid: 6392204
references.citation: J Med Syst. 2012 Jun;36(3):1381-8
references.pmid: 20878452
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2013 Feb 26;15(2):e43
references.pmid: 23470453
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2002 Apr-Nov;4(2):E7
references.pmid: 12554554