IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v153y2020ics0040162517312696.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

E-health and wellbeing monitoring using smart healthcare devices: An empirical investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Papa, Armando
  • Mital, Monika
  • Pisano, Paola
  • Del Giudice, Manlio

Abstract

According to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal No. 3 (SDG – Goal 3), for sustainable development it is imperative to ensure health and well-being across all ages, and is achievable only through effective and continuous healthcare monitoring. But in India and other third world countries, healthcare monitoring is poor compared to other countries in the world, in spite of it being affordable. The global healthcare smart wearable healthcare (SWH) devices market is expected to rise up at a CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of 5.6% and by 2020 it is expected to reach 25 Billion (GVR Report, 2016). The growing incidences of lifestyle diseases, sedentary lifestyle, busy work schedules, technological advancements in healthcare monitoring devices, and increased usage of remote devicesseems to be some of the important factors fuelling this growth. Some of the major players in this segment are Abbott Laboratories, Philips Healthcare, Life Watch, GE Healthcare, Omron Healthcare, Siemens Healthcare and Honeywell International Inc. etc. But in spite of the healthcare monitoring devices are being predicted to be technologically innovative and providing advanced as well as basic health care monitoring features and available in various price ranges based on the features, we wanted to empirically study the attitude towards adoption of such devices in India. India has traditionally been having a very lackadaisical attitude towards healthcare monitoring. In such a context, what would be the factors influencing the adoption of SWH devices. Remote health monitoring can enhance the nature of wellbeing administration and to lessen the aggregate expense in human services by maintaining a strategic distance from pointless hospitalizations and guaranteeing that the individuals who need critical consideration get it sooner. This empirical investigation would provide a detailed insight as to how these wearable Internet Of Things devices would bring about a revolution in the healthcare industry. It would also provide the future prospect of IOT devices in this sector and how the probability of increase in its usage can be increased with time. The paper explores intrusiveness (INTR), Comfort (C), perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (EOU) of SWH devices. The study hypothesized the Impact of PU and EOU, INTR and C on attitude and intention to use towards adoption of SWH devices. Partial Least Square Structured Equation Modeling (PLS – SEM) methodology was applied to explore the relationships between the concepts and hypothesis. The data was collected from 273 respondents. The age group of the respondents was between 25 and 40 years. The results indicated that intrusiveness and comfort do not have a significant direct impact on Intention to use BI (Behavior Intention) BI SWH devices. At the same time Intrusiveness had a significant impact on PU of SWH devices and Comfort has a strong significant impact on PU and EOU of smart wearables. The research has strong implications in the current emerging context of smart wearables, their design and effectiveness. Also the research can have lasting implications on elderly health and well-being. There are very few empirical studies in the area of SWH devices. Most of the studies till now are conceptual studies or providing technology architectures and frameworks. The research in this area is still at a very nascent stage and very few studies have been done to explore the use and adoption of SWH devices.

Suggested Citation

  • Papa, Armando & Mital, Monika & Pisano, Paola & Del Giudice, Manlio, 2020. "E-health and wellbeing monitoring using smart healthcare devices: An empirical investigation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:153:y:2020:i:c:s0040162517312696
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517312696
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bresciani, Stefano & Ferraris, Alberto & Del Giudice, Manlio, 2018. "The management of organizational ambidexterity through alliances in a new context of analysis: Internet of Things (IoT) smart city projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 331-338.
    2. Barbara H. Wixom & Peter A. Todd, 2005. "A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 85-102, March.
    3. Veronica Scuotto & Gabriele Santoro & Armando Papa & Elias G. Carayannis, 2017. "Triggering open service innovation through social media networks," MERCATI & COMPETITIVIT?, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(3), pages 21-40.
    4. Zhou, Kaile & Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2016. "Big data driven smart energy management: From big data to big insights," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 215-225.
    5. Kieran Mathieson, 1991. "Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 173-191, September.
    6. Peter P. Mykytyn Jr. & David A. Harrison, 1993. "The Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action to Senior Management and Strategic Information Systems," Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), IGI Global, vol. 6(2), pages 15-26, April.
    7. Jaewoon Lee & Dongho Kim & Han-Young Ryoo & Byeong-Seok Shin, 2016. "Sustainable Wearables: Wearable Technology for Enhancing the Quality of Human Life," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-16, May.
    8. Elias Carayannis & Ruslan Rakhmatullin, 2014. "The Quadruple/Quintuple Innovation Helixes and Smart Specialisation Strategies for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in Europe and Beyond," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 5(2), pages 212-239, June.
    9. Demetris Vrontis & Alkis Thrassou & Gabriele Santoro & Armando Papa, 2017. "Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 374-388, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mital, Monika & Chang, Victor & Choudhary, Praveen & Papa, Armando & Pani, Ashis K., 2018. "Adoption of Internet of Things in India: A test of competing models using a structured equation modeling approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 339-346.
    2. Johannes Putzke & Detlef Schoder & Kai Fischbach, 2010. "Adoption of Mass-Customized Newspapers: An Augmented Technology Acceptance Perspective," Journal of Media Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 143-164.
    3. Santoro, Gabriele & Bresciani, Stefano & Papa, Armando, 2020. "Collaborative modes with Cultural and Creative Industries and innovation performance: The moderating role of heterogeneous sources of knowledge and absorptive capacity," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 92.
    4. Donglin Han & Huiying (Cynthia) Hou & Hao Wu & Joseph H. K. Lai, 2021. "Modelling Tourists’ Acceptance of Hotel Experience-Enhancement Smart Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Kathrin Dudenhöffer, 2013. "Why electric vehicles failed," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 95-124, July.
    6. Mazzucchelli, Alice & Chierici, Roberto & Abbate, Tindara & Fontana, Stefano, 2019. "Exploring the microfoundations of innovation capabilities. Evidence from a cross-border R&D partnership," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 242-252.
    7. Katharina Fellnhofer, 2017. "Facilitating entrepreneurial discovery in smart specialisation via stakeholder participation within online mechanisms for knowledge-based policy advice," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1296802-129, January.
    8. Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2019. "Trading knowledge for status: Conceptualizing R&D alliance formation to achieve ambidexterity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 36-42.
    9. Nan Zhang & Xunhua Guo & Guoqing Chen, 2011. "Why adoption and use behavior of IT/IS cannot last?—two studies in China," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 381-395, July.
    10. Ferraris, Alberto & Devalle, Alain & Ciampi, Francesco & Couturier, Jerome, 2019. "Are global R&D partnerships enough to increase a company's innovation performance? The role of search and integrative capacities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    11. Jullie Jeanette Sondakh, 2017. "Behavioral Intention to Use E-Tax Service System: An Application of Technology Acceptance Model," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2A), pages 48-64.
    12. Montserrat Boronat-Navarro & Alexandra García-Joerger, 2019. "Ambidexterity, Alliances and Environmental Management System Adoption in Spanish Hotels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    13. Pereira, Vijay & Giudice, Manlio Del & Malik, Ashish & Tarba, Shlomo & Temouri, Yama & Budhwar, Pawan & Patnaik, Swetketu, 2021. "A longitudinal investigation into multilevel agile & ambidextrous strategic dualities in an information technology high performing EMNE," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    14. Minseok Choi & Kyeongseok Han & Jeongil Choi, 2015. "The effects of product attributes and service quality of transportation card solutions on service user’s continuance and word-of-mouth intention," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 9(3), pages 463-490, September.
    15. Santoro, Gabriele & Quaglia, Roberto & Pellicelli, Anna Claudia & De Bernardi, Paola, 2020. "The interplay among entrepreneur, employees, and firm level factors in explaining SMEs openness: A qualitative micro-foundational approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    16. Vrontis, Demetris & Basile, Gianpaolo & Simona Andreano, M. & Mazzitelli, Andrea & Papasolomou, Ioanna, 2020. "The profile of innovation driven Italian SMEs and the relationship between the firms’ networking abilities and dynamic capabilities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 313-324.
    17. Benedikt Schnellbächer & Sven Heidenreich, 2020. "The role of individual ambidexterity for organizational performance: examining effects of ambidextrous knowledge seeking and offering," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1535-1561, October.
    18. Ferraris, Alberto & Belyaeva, Zhanna & Bresciani, Stefano, 2020. "The role of universities in the Smart City innovation: Multistakeholder integration and engagement perspectives," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 163-171.
    19. Christofi, Michael & Vrontis, Demetris & Cadogan, John W., 2021. "Micro-foundational ambidexterity and multinational enterprises: A systematic review and a conceptual framework," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(1).
    20. Porter, Constance Elise & Donthu, Naveen, 2006. "Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(9), pages 999-1007, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:153:y:2020:i:c:s0040162517312696. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.