Proposing a mobile apps acceptance model for users in the health area: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The influence of digital literacy on the use of mHealth apps becomes much stronger when combined with experience with mHealth apps.
“In other words, the influence of individuals’ digital literacy on the use of mHealth apps becomes much stronger when combined with their experience with mHealth apps.80,81”
From The influence of digital literacy on mHealth app usability: The mediating role of patient expertise (2024) · cites this paper as [80]
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 · see citing works
Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036 · Cited by 986 · cited 3× · see citing works
“(2) It had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal to ensure the quality of articles 32,35 ; thus, conference proceedings, student dissertations and unpublished studies were excluded.”
BackgroundMethodZhang, X., Han, X., Dang, Y., Meng, F., Guo, X., & Lin, J. (2017) · Informatics for Health and Social Care · doi:10.1080/17538157.2016.1200053 · Cited by 241 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Therefore, the objectives of this paper are to (1) systematically review related articles within the domain of mHealth acceptance, (2) identify the most commonly investigated significant relationships in these articles, (3) assess the strength of the identified relationships, and (4) propose a general model with laten…”
BackgroundFactors influencing behavior intentions to telehealth by Chinese elderly: An extended TAM model
Zhou, M., Zhao, L., Kong, N., Campy, K. S., Qu, S., & Wang, S. (2019) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.04.001 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rasool, R. U., Ahmad, H. F., Rafique, W., Qayyum, A., & Qadir, J. (2022) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2022.103332 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
The influence of digital literacy on mHealth app usability: The mediating role of patient expertise
Durmuş, A. (2024) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076241299061 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Binyamin, S. S., & Zafar, B. A.
- Affiliations
- King Abdulaziz University (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Binyamin, Sami S
- Venue
- Health Informatics Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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