4.5 Article

Understanding the evaluation of mHealth app features based on a cross-country Kano analysis

期刊

ELECTRONIC MARKETS
卷 31, 期 4, 页码 765-794

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s12525-020-00455-y

关键词

Personal health record; Kano model; Privacy concerns; mHealth literacy; mHealth self-efficacy; Adult playfulness

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates user evaluations of personal health record app features in Germany and Denmark, revealing significant differences between the two countries and demonstrating the impact of user characteristics on these differences.
While mobile health (mHealth) apps play an increasingly important role in digitalized health care, little is known regarding the effects of specific mHealth app features on user satisfaction across different healthcare system contexts. Using personal health record (PHR) apps as an example, this study identifies how potential users in Germany and Denmark evaluate a set of 26 app features, and whether evaluation differences can be explained by the differences in four pertinent user characteristics, namely privacy concerns, mHealth literacy, mHealth self-efficacy, and adult playfulness. Based on survey data from both countries, we employed the Kano method to evaluate PHR features and applied a quartile-based sample-split approach to understand the underlying relationships between user characteristics and their perceptions of features. Our results not only reveal significant differences in 14 of the features between Germans and Danes, they also demonstrate which of the user characteristics best explain each of these differences. Our two key contributions are, first, to explain the evaluation of specific PHR app features on user satisfaction in two different healthcare contexts and, second, to demonstrate how to extend the Kano method in terms of explaining subgroup differences through user characteristic antecedents. The implications for app providers and policymakers are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据