Back

Biases in the Willingness to Download a mHealth App: A Discrete Choices Experimental Study Among Nigerian Healthcare App Subscribers

OGBAGA, I.

2024-01-09 health informatics
10.1101/2024.01.08.24300983 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAlthough there has been an increase in the availability of mobile health (mHealth) tools globally and their potential benefits for both healthcare providers and patients, the adoption of mHealth is still relatively low. Additionally, only a limited number of studies have investigated the intention of individuals to download mHealth apps. ObjectiveWe conducted a study to explore peoples inclination towards using a health app. MethodsWe conducted the study in Nigeria using a discrete choice experiment. The study had a sample size of 2800 participants who were presented with two different attributes and levels. These attributes were price ($20 = N 17932.80 [at a currency exchange rate of $1= N896.64], and free subscription option) and data protection (with options of data protection vs no data protection). The participants were randomly assigned to the different attribute and level options. For the analysis, we used the conditional logistic model. ResultsAccording to the results of the study, the likelihood of downloading a mHealth app is significantly higher when the app is offered for free. The study also found that users tend to ignore data protection specifications, and instead prioritize free subscription offers while showing reluctance towards apps that come with a price tag. ConclusionsThe use of mobile health (mHealth) tools has a high potential in reducing healthcare costs and enhancing the efficacy of traditional health interventions and therapies. The major driving forces behind the increasing adoption of mHealth apps in the future are cost reduction and the establishment of sound business models. It is crucial to establish reliable standards for mHealth apps, which can include information about pricing and legislation regarding data protection, to ensure that potential consumers can make informed decisions.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.2%
2
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.9%
3
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.2%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.9%
6
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
7
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.6%
8
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
9
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
10
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
11
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
12
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
13
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
14
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
15
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.2%
16
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
17
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
18
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
19
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 76%
0.7%
22
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
23
BMC Research Notes
29 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.5%
24
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%