Comparing the Acceptance of Mobile Hypertension Apps for Disease Management Among Patients Versus Clinical Use Among Physicians: Cross-sectional Survey

Abstract

Background High blood pressure or hypertension is a vastly prevalent chronic condition among adults that can, if not appropriately treated, contribute to several life-threatening secondary diseases and events, such as stroke. In addition to first-line medication, self-management in daily life is crucial for tertiary prevention and can be supported by mobile health apps, including medication reminders. However, the prescription of medical apps is a relatively novel approach. There is limited information regarding the determinants of acceptance of such mobile health (mHealth) apps among patients as potential users and physicians as impending prescribers in direct comparison. Objective The present study aims to investigate the determinants of the acceptance of health apps (in terms of intention to use) among patients for personal use and physicians for clinical use in German-speaking countries. Moreover, we assessed patients’ preferences regarding different delivery modes for self-care service (face-to-face services, apps, etc). Methods Based on an extended model of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2), we performed a web-based cross-sectional survey to explore the acceptance of mHealth apps for self-management of hypertension among patients and physicians in Germany. In addition to UTAUT2 variables, we measured self-reported self-efficacy, eHealth literacy, previous experiences with health apps, perceived threat to privacy, and protection motivation as additional determinants of mHealth acceptance. Data from 163 patients and 46 physicians were analyzed using hierarchical regression and mediation analyses. Results As expected, a significant influence of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) predictors on intentions to use hypertension apps was confirmed, especially for performance expectancy. Intention to use was moderate in patients (mean 3.5; SD 1.1; range 1-5) and physicians (mean 3.4, SD 0.9), and did not differ between both groups. Among patients, a higher degree of self-reported self-efficacy and protection motivation contributed to an increased explained variance in acceptance with R2=0.09, whereas eHealth literacy was identified as exerting a positive influence on physicians (increased R2=0.10). Furthermore, our findings indicated mediating effects of performance expectancy on the acceptance among patients but not among physicians. Conclusions In summary, this study has identified performance expectancy as the most important determinant of the acceptance of mHealth apps for self-management of hypertension among patients and physicians. Concerning patients, we also identified mediating effects of performance expectancy on the relationships between effort expectancy and social influence and the acceptance of apps. Self-efficacy and protection motivation also contributed to an increase in the explained variance in app acceptance among patients, whereas eHealth literacy was a predictor in physicians. Our findings on additional determinants of the acceptance of health apps may help tailor educational material and self-management interventions to the needs and preferences of prospective users of hypertension apps in future research.

Exposure Detection Applications Acceptance: The Case of COVID-19

“…A proportion of IS-dedicated literature has been directed towards protective behaviours, including mobile/online health and telemedicine adoption [ 45 , 46 ], compliance to information security policy [ 47 ], and others. In these studies, researchers have used two general theoretical methods to examine protective behaviours, with the first approach depending on general theories to shed light on and predict different general behaviour types, the top theories being the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB).…”

Extension of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 model for predicting mHealth acceptance using diabetes as an example: a cross-sectional validation study

“…We also identified a significant impact of the UTAUT2 constructs, PE and HT, in predicting mHealth acceptance, where PE showed the strongest effect, which is in line with several mHealth acceptance studies. 20 30 …”

Healthcare consumers' and professionals' perceived acceptability of evidence‐based interventions for rural transitional care

“…Third, professionals may have been aware of system‐level barriers to implementing the interventions and may have taken these into account when rating the interventions' appropriateness and convenience, thus producing lower scores than consumers. Lastly, the two groups may have had different motivations when considering the interventions and thus varied in their perceptions of the interventions' acceptability (Breil et al, 2022). Consumers may have been focusing on the interventions' capacity to improve post‐discharge care management and perceived that as meriting any inconvenience involved, whereas professionals may have been focusing on the potential for the interventions to increase their workloads.…”

“…The study of intervention acceptability has steadily risen over the past decade alongside growing concerns about intervention uptake (Klaic et al, 2022). Several studies have compared consumers' and professionals' perspectives on the acceptability of a range of proposed healthcare interventions such as opioid‐reduction programs (Bedford et al, 2021; Godersky et al, 2019), mobility technologies for hypertension (Bhandari et al, 2021; Breil et al, 2022), and bystander sexual harassment training (Fenwick et al, 2021). However, we found only one study that focused on transitional care.…”