IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i18p11783-d918217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Users’ Health Behavior Changes in Online Health Communities: Heuristic-Systematic Perspective Study

Author

Listed:
  • Liyue Gong

    (Department of Biomedical Information, School of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha 410013, China)

  • Hao Jiang

    (Department of Biomedical Information, School of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha 410013, China)

  • Xusheng Wu

    (Shenzhen Health Development Research and Data Management Center, Shenzhen 518028, China)

  • Yi Kong

    (Department of Biomedical Information, School of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha 410013, China)

  • Yunyun Gao

    (Department of Biomedical Information, School of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha 410013, China)

  • Hao Liu

    (Department of Biomedical Information, School of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha 410013, China)

  • Yi Guo

    (Department of Biomedical Information, School of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha 410013, China)

  • Dehua Hu

    (Department of Biomedical Information, School of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha 410013, China)

Abstract

(1) Background: With the continuous advancement of internet technology, use of the internet along with medical service provides a new solution to solve the shortage of medical resources and the uneven distribution of available resources. Online health communities (OHCs) that emerged at this historical moment have flourished with various advantages, such as being free from location and time constraints. Understanding users’ behavior changes via engagement in OHCs is necessary to support the development of internet medicine and promote public health. (2) Methods: The hypotheses of our research model were developed based on the protective action decision model (PADM) and heuristic-systematic model (HSM). A questionnaire was developed with seven constructs through previous studies and verified using a presurvey. Our survey respondents are online health community users. We used structural equation modelling to test the research hypotheses. (3) Results: The results of the analysis of 290 valid samples showed that the research model fit the data collected well. The perceived benefits (PB) positively affect information needs (IN) (beta = 0.280, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.252), thereby promoting users’ engagement in OHCs (EOHCs) (beta = 0.353, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.387); EOHCs has a significant positive impact on health behavior change (HBC) (beta = 0.314, p < 0.001), and it also significantly positively affects users’ health behavior change through systematic processing indirectly (beta = 0.252, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.387). (4) Conclusions: Our study offers support for the usefulness of the PADM and HSM in explaining users’ health behavior changes. For practitioners, this study introduces influence processes as policy tools that managers can employ for health-promoting with mHealth.

Suggested Citation

  • Liyue Gong & Hao Jiang & Xusheng Wu & Yi Kong & Yunyun Gao & Hao Liu & Yi Guo & Dehua Hu, 2022. "Exploring Users’ Health Behavior Changes in Online Health Communities: Heuristic-Systematic Perspective Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11783-:d:918217
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11783/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11783/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ellen Ter Huurne & Jan Gutteling, 2008. "Information needs and risk perception as predictors of risk information seeking," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 847-862, October.
    2. Kurt Neuwirth & Sharon Dunwoody & Robert J. Griffin, 2000. "Protection Motivation and Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 721-734, October.
    3. Noora Hirvonen & Maija‐Leena Huotari & Raimo Niemelä & Raija Korpelainen, 2012. "Information behavior in stages of exercise behavior change," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(9), pages 1804-1819, September.
    4. Yumei Li & Xiangbin Yan, 2020. "How Could Peers in Online Health Community Help Improve Health Behavior," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    6. Lu, Hang & Song, Hwanseok & McComas, Katherine, 2021. "Seeking information about enhanced geothermal systems: The role of fairness, uncertainty, systematic processing, and information engagement intentions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 855-864.
    7. Xiaoting Xu & Honglei Li & Shan Shan, 2021. "Understanding the Health Behavior Decision-Making Process with Situational Theory of Problem Solving in Online Health Communities: The Effects of Health Beliefs, Message Credibility, and Communication," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Shao-Jie Li & Yong-Tian Yin & Guang-Hui Cui & Hui-Lan Xu, 2020. "The Associations Among Health-Promoting Lifestyle, eHealth Literacy, and Cognitive Health in Older Chinese Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-10, March.
    9. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.
    10. Craig W. Trumbo, 1999. "Heuristic‐Systematic Information Processing and Risk Judgment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 391-400, June.
    11. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, 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. Zeng, Jing & Duan, Hongyu & Zhu, Weiwei & Song, Jingyan, 2024. "Understanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    2. Jiuchang Wei & Ming Zhao & Fei Wang & Peng Cheng & Dingtao Zhao, 2016. "An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’ Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 114-129, January.
    3. Branden B. Johnson, 2005. "Testing and Expanding a Model of Cognitive Processing of Risk Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 631-650, June.
    4. Zuraidah Sulaiman & Hanis Syuhada Ahmad Sugiran & Nornajihah Nadia Hasbullah & Adaviah Mas’od & Suhairul Hashim & David Andrew Bradley, 2022. "Public Awareness of Consumer Products Containing Radioactive Materials: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    6. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    7. Jan M. Gutteling & Peter W. de Vries, 2017. "Determinants of Seeking and Avoiding Risk‐Related Information in Times of Crisis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 27-39, January.
    8. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    9. Wang, Fei & Zhang, Zhentai & Lin, Shoufu, 2023. "Purchase intention of Autonomous vehicles and industrial Policies: Evidence from a national survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    10. Timothy Sim & Li-San Hung & Gui-Wu Su & Ke Cui, 2018. "Interpersonal communication sources and natural hazard risk perception: a case study of a rural Chinese village," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(3), pages 1307-1326, December.
    11. Kenneth Lachlan & Patric R. Spence, 2010. "Communicating Risks: Examining Hazard and Outrage in Multiple Contexts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(12), pages 1872-1886, December.
    12. Raul P. Lejano & Muhammad Saidur Rahman & Laila Kabir, 2020. "Risk Communication for Empowerment: Interventions in a Rohingya Refugee Settlement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2360-2372, November.
    13. Michal Titko & Jozef Ristvej & Zenon Zamiar, 2021. "Population Preparedness for Disasters and Extreme Weather Events as a Predictor of Building a Resilient Society: The Slovak Republic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-24, February.
    14. Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2006. "Psychological Determinants of Reactions to Food Risk Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1045-1057, August.
    15. Wei Qi & Xiumei Guo & Xia Wu & Dora Marinova & Jin Fan, 2018. "Do the sunk cost effect and cognitive dissonance increase risk perception? An empirical study in the context of city smog," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 2269-2289, September.
    16. Shasha Li & Guofang Zhai & Shutian Zhou & Chenjing Fan & Yunqing Wu & Chongqiang Ren, 2017. "Insight into the Earthquake Risk Information Seeking Behavior of the Victims: Evidence from Songyuan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, March.
    17. Zhao, Yuanshuang & Dong, Liang & Sun, Yuhang & Ma, Yunning & Zhang, Ning, 2024. "Is air pollution the original sin of firms? The impact of air pollution on firms' ESG scores," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    18. Chuanhui Liao & Xiaomei Zhou & Dingtao Zhao, 2018. "An Augmented Risk Information Seeking Model: Perceived Food Safety Risk Related to Food Recalls," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, August.
    19. Hu, Xiaoli & Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang, 2021. "Effects of information strategies on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    20. Zhaohui Yang & Krishna P. Paudel & Xiaowei Wen & Sangluo Sun & Yong Wang, 2020. "Food Safety Risk Information-Seeking Intention of WeChat Users in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15, March.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11783-:d:918217. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.