CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 63Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Determinant Factors of Public Acceptance of Stress Management Apps: Survey Study

Open access
Apolinário-Hagen, Jennifer, Hennemann, Severin, Fritsche, Lara, Drüge, Marie, Breil, Bernhard·2019·JMIR Mental Health
DOI 10.2196/15373PMC PMC6873149

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND Chronic stress is a major public health concern. Mobile health (mHealth) apps can help promote coping skills in daily life and prevent stress-related issues. However, little is known about the determinant factors of public acceptance of stress management in relation to preferences for psychological services. OBJECTIVE The aim of this survey study was to (1) assess determinant factors of public acceptance (behavioral use intention) of stress management apps based on an adapted and extended version of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model and (2) explore preferences for mHealth apps compared with other mental health services. METHODS Using convenience sampling, participants completed a multiscale 54-item Web-based survey. Based on significant correlations with acceptance, hierarchical stepwise regression analysis was performed within three blocks: (1) background and stress-related control variables, (2) beliefs and attitudes toward using mHealth, and (3) the core UTAUT determinants. The preference for mHealth apps in comparison with nine other mental health services (operationalized as readiness to use) was analyzed using paired t tests. RESULTS Of 141 participants, nearly half (69/141, 48.9%) indicated prior mHealth use. Acceptance of stress coping apps was moderate (mean 3.10, SD 1.03, range 1-5). Hierarchical stepwise regression including four of 11 variables (R2=.62; P=.01, f2=1.63) identified positive attitudes toward using mHealth for stress coping (beta=0.69, P<.001, 46% R2 increase above block 1, f2=0.85), skepticism/perceived risks (beta=−0.14, P=.01, f2=0.16), and stress symptoms (beta=0.12, P=.03, f2=0.14) as significant predictors of acceptance. UTAUT determinants added no predictive contribution beyond attitudes (all P>.05, R2 increase of 1%), whereas post hoc analysis showed significant R2 increases of attitudes and skepticism/perceived risks beyond UTAUT determinants (all P<.001, R2 increase of 13%). The readiness to use apps was equivalent to or significantly higher than most service types, but lower than information websites. CONCLUSIONS Attitudes may be at least as predictive for the acceptance of stress management apps as for more elaborated outcome beliefs. Efforts aimed at improving the public adoption of mHealth could put more emphasis on the pleasant aspects of app use, address misconceptions, offer stress screening tools on health websites, and increase options to try high-quality apps.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/15373

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Acceptance was measured using a German translation of the Attitude/affect toward using technology scale (ATT).

    “A German translation of the “Attitude/affect toward using technology”-scale (ATT) [22] was used to measure patients’ acceptance of the therapeutic online material.”

    From Blended care in in-patient acute psychiatric care. The example of a group training for social competences in adults—A pretest–posttest feasibility study (2021) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Methods > Measures table (page unavailable) includes a four-item UTAUT measure of attitudes toward technology use, consistent with the cited scale’s subject. But it measures attitudes as a determinant; the paper measures acceptance separately through behavioral use intention. Our copy does not identify the attitudes measure as a German translation. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 123 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [47]Taiwo A Downe AG The theory of user acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a meta-analytic review of empirical findings J Theor Appl Inform Technol 2013 49 1 48 58
  2. [51]Apolinário-Hagen J Menzel M Hennemann S Salewski C Acceptance of mobile health apps for disease management among people with multiple sclerosis: web-based survey study JMIR Form Res 2018 12 12 2 2 e11977 10.2196/11977 30684408 v2i2e11977 30684408 PMC6334710 · DOI
  3. [90]Cohen J Statistical Power Analysis For The Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Edition 1988 Hillsdale, NJ Routledge
  4. [114]Apolinário-Hagen J Wopperer J Wals F Harrer M Ebert DD User testimonials to improve attitudes toward digital stress coping interventions among university students: preliminary results of a pilot RCT 2019 1st Conference of the Norwegian Society for Research on Internet Interventions (NORSII) May 14, 2019 Bergen, Norway

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Apolinário-Hagen, J., Hennemann, S., Fritsche, L., Drüge, M., & Breil, B.
Affiliations
  • Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • FernUniversität in Hagen (DE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Hochschule Niederrhein (DE)
Corresponding author
Apolinário-Hagen, Jennifer
ORCID
Venue
JMIR Mental Health
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2019-11-07
Volume
6
Issue
11
Pages
e15373
ISSN
2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/15373
PMC
PMC6873149
OpenAlex
W2979767182
Cited by
63
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6
FWCI
10.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
mobile health, public acceptance, UTAUT, technology acceptance, risk perception, stress symptoms, chronic stress, information websites, coping strategies, outcome beliefs, behavioral intention, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, social influence, facilitating conditions

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