Cited by 89Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Proposing a mobile apps acceptance model for users in the health area: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Open access
Binyamin, Sami S, Zafar, Bassam A·2021·Health Informatics Journal

Abstract

Due to rapid advancements in the field of information and communication technologies, mobile health (mHealth) has become a significant topic in the delivery of healthcare. Despite the perceived advantages and the large number of mHealth initiatives, the success of mHealth ultimately relies on whether these initiatives are used; their benefits will be diminished should people not use them. Previous literature has found that the adoption of mHealth by users is not yet widespread, and little research has been conducted on this problem. Therefore, this study identifies the antecedents of the intention to use mHealth and proposes a general model that might prove beneficial in explaining the acceptance of mHealth. The authors performed a quantitative meta-analysis of 49 journal papers published over the past 10 years and systematically reviewed the evidence regarding the most commonly identified factors that may affect the acceptance of mHealth. The findings indicate that the proposed model includes the seven most commonly used relationships in the selected articles. More specifically, the model assumes that perceived usefulness positively affects perceived ease of use and user behavioral intention to use mHealth is commonly influenced by five factors: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude toward behavior, subjective norms, and facilitating conditions. The results of this work provide important insights into the predictors of mHealth acceptance for future researchers and practitioners.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1460458220976737

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Binyamin, S. S., & Zafar, B. A.
Affiliations
King Abdulaziz University (SA)
Corresponding author
Binyamin, Sami S
Venue
Health Informatics Journal
Published
2021-01
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
1460458220976737-1460458220976737
ISSN
  • 1355-4743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-4582
  • 1741-2811
OpenAlex
W3118537488
Cited by
89
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 7
FWCI
2.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Informatics Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
king abdulaziz university (J: 57-156-1441)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
mobile health, mHealth adoption, technology acceptance, user acceptance model, intention to use, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude toward using, subjective norms, facilitating conditions, health technology adoption
MeSH terms
Humans, Telemedicine, Intention, Mobile Applications

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