The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
E-health and wellbeing monitoring using smart healthcare devices: An empirical investigation
Open accessAbstract
Abstract According to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal No. 3 (SDG – Goal 3), for sustainable development it is imperative to ensure health and well-being across all ages, and is achievable only through effective and continuous healthcare monitoring. But in India and other third world countries, healthcare monitoring is poor compared to other countries in the world, in spite of it being affordable. The global healthcare smart wearable healthcare (SWH) devices market is expected to rise up at a CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of 5.6% and by 2020 it is expected to reach 25 Billion (GVR Report, 2016). The growing incidences of lifestyle diseases, sedentary lifestyle, busy work schedules, technological advancements in healthcare monitoring devices, and increased usage of remote devicesseems to be some of the important factors fuelling this growth. Some of the major players in this segment are Abbott Laboratories, Philips Healthcare, Life Watch, GE Healthcare, Omron Healthcare, Siemens Healthcare and Honeywell International Inc. etc. But in spite of the healthcare monitoring devices are being predicted to be technologically innovative and providing advanced as well as basic health care monitoring features and available in various price ranges based on the features, we wanted to empirically study the attitude towards adoption of such devices in India. India has traditionally been having a very lackadaisical attitude towards healthcare monitoring. In such a context, what would be the factors influencing the adoption of SWH devices. Remote health monitoring can enhance the nature of wellbeing administration and to lessen the aggregate expense in human services by maintaining a strategic distance from pointless hospitalizations and guaranteeing that the individuals who need critical consideration get it sooner. This empirical investigation would provide a detailed insight as to how these wearable Internet Of Things devices would bring about a revolution in the healthcare industry. It would also provide the future prospect of IOT devices in this sector and how the probability of increase in its usage can be increased with time. The paper explores intrusiveness (INTR), Comfort (C), perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (EOU) of SWH devices. The study hypothesized the Impact of PU and EOU, INTR and C on attitude and intention to use towards adoption of SWH devices. Partial Least Square Structured Equation Modeling (PLS – SEM) methodology was applied to explore the relationships between the concepts and hypothesis. The data was collected from 273 respondents. The age group of the respondents was between 25 and 40 years. The results indicated that intrusiveness and comfort do not have a significant direct impact on Intention to use BI (Behavior Intention) BI SWH devices. At the same time Intrusiveness had a significant impact on PU of SWH devices and Comfort has a strong significant impact on PU and EOU of smart wearables. The research has strong implications in the current emerging context of smart wearables, their design and effectiveness. Also the research can have lasting implications on elderly health and well-being. There are very few empirical studies in the area of SWH devices. Most of the studies till now are conceptual studies or providing technology architectures and frameworks. The research in this area is still at a very nascent stage and very few studies have been done to explore the use and adoption of SWH devices.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424 · Cited by 12,298
Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.507 · Cited by 6,324 · cited 1×
“…efficiency and firm performance, accordingly the principles of open innovation studies and external source of knowledge (Ahn et al., 2016; Chesbrough, 2003; Laursen and Salter, 2006; Van de Vrande, De Jong, Vanhaverbeke, and De Rochemont, 2009; Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Vrontis et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMathieson, K. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.173 · Cited by 4,216
Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013)
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428114526928 · Cited by 3,332
Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges
van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & de Rochemont, M. (2009) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.001 · Cited by 2,184
Big data driven smart energy management: from big data to big insights
Zhou, K., Fu, C., & Yang, S. (2016) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.050 · Cited by 841
Smart community: an internet of things application
Li, X., Lu, R., Liang, X., Shen, X., Chen, J., & Lin, X. (2011) · IEEE Communications Magazine · doi:10.1109/mcom.2011.6069711 · Cited by 586
Cited by
Brem, A., Viardot, E., & Nylund, P. A. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120451 · Cited by 389
Arfi, W. B., Nasr, I. B., Kondrateva, G., & Hikkerova, L. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120688 · Cited by 290
Xing, F., Peng, G., Zhang, B., Li, S., & Liang, X. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120609 · Cited by 73
Del-Valle-Soto, C., López-Pimentel, J. C., Vázquez-Castillo, J., Nolazco-Flores, J. A., Velázquez, R., Varela-Aldás, J., & Visconti, P. (2024) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s24082429 · Cited by 52
Behavioural intention to use a contact tracing application: the case of StopCovid in France
Shahidi, N., Tossan, V., Bourliataux-Lajoinie, S., & Cacho-Elizondo, S. (2022) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102998 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Papa, A., Mital, M., Pisano, P., & Del Giudice, M.
- Venue
- Technological Forecasting and Social Change
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 153
- Pages
- 119226
- ISSN
- 0040-1625 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2789986734
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 35.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: E-health and wellbeing monitoring using smart healthcare devices: An empirical investigation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.018
- The paper
- Papa, A., Mital, M., Pisano, P., & Del Giudice, M. (2020). E-health and wellbeing monitoring using smart healthcare devices: An empirical investigation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.018
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.