Home > Journals > JOEUC > Article
An Investigation of Patient Decisions to Use eHealth: A View of Multichannel Services
Open Access Journal

An Investigation of Patient Decisions to Use eHealth: A View of Multichannel Services

Suli Zheng (China Jiliang University, China), Po-Ya Chang (National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taiwan), Jiahe Chen (Western Sydney University, Australia), Yu-Wei Chang (National Taichung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan), and Hueng-Chuen Fan (Tungs' Taichung Metroharbor Hospital, Taiwan & National Chung Hsing University, China & Jen-Teh Junior College of Medicine, Taiwan)
Copyright: © 2022 | Pages: 24
DOI: 10.4018/JOEUC.289433

Abstract

eHealth service has received increasing attention. Patients can consult online doctors via the Internet, and then physically visit the doctors for further diagnosis and treatments. Although extant research has focused on the adoption of eHealth services, the decision-making process from online to offline health services still remains unclear. This study aims to examine patients’ decisions to use online and offline health services by integrating the extended valence framework and the halo effect. By analyzing 221 samples with online consultation experiences, the results show that trust significantly influences perceived benefits and perceived risks, while trust, perceived benefits, and perceived risks significantly influence the intention to consult. The intention to consult positively influences the intention to visit. Considering the moderating effects of payment types, the influence of perceived risks on the intention to consult is larger for the free group than for the paid group. The findings are useful to better understand patients’ decisions to use eHealth.
Article Preview
Top

Introduction

With the development of the healthcare industry and high-speed internet facilities, eHealth has been developing rapidly worldwide. eHealth can encompass a range of services, including telehealth, telemedicine, mHealth, electronic medical records, or other health IT services. When health applications are linked to mobile devices, patients can consult online doctors via mobile phones, and doctors can treat their patients remotely. As the number of health internet users is growing rapidly, the global eHealth market is expected to grow from USD 40.82 billion in 2017 to 132.35 billion by 2023 (marketsandmarkets.com, 2018). Governments and businesses in China, India, and Australia contribute to the development of the eHealth market.

Online health consultation is a type of eHealth service in which communication between patients and doctors is offered via the internet. Patients can consult online doctors about their illnesses, and doctors can provide diagnoses, treatment plans and even prescriptions via the internet. If necessary, a patient can physically visit a doctor for further diagnosis and treatment after consulting the online doctor. Contrary to the traditional direct visit with a doctor, online health consultations help patients save considerable time and offer convenience (Chang et al., 2019). In particular, during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, online health consultations can help reduce the risk of cross-infection for patients with mild illnesses.

Although eHealth is playing an increasingly important role in the COVID-19 pandemic, the adoption rate of online health consultations was relatively low in China. According to a research report, 390 million Chinese people have used eHealth services, including online appointments, health information seeking, and patient-centered communication. Among eHealth users, less than half (47.6%) used online health consultations, accounting for only a quarter of the Chinese population (LeadLeo, 2020). Compared with more than half of Americans who used online health consultations, the low adoption rate limits the development of the eHealth industry (Gong et al., 2019). Therefore, understanding the factors that affect patients’ use of online health consultations seems more important than ever.

Online health consultation services are beneficial to patients, but online health services also introduce privacy risks for patients, who disclose personal information (i.e., medical consultations, medical treatments, and medicine prescriptions) on online health platforms. When patients worry that their personal information may be hacked via the internet and even be misused by unknown institutions, they may refuse to use online services. Since risks may decrease patients’ intentions to adopt technology, trust is proposed to be an effective way to mitigate the perception of risks (Gong et al., 2019; Hong et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). Trust is included in the proposed model to be the antecedent of perceived benefits and perceived risks.

Although the extant research has increasingly focused on the adoption of eHealth services, such as health information systems, online seeking services, and online health forums (Chang et al., 2016; Cho, 2016; Dünnebeil et al., 2012; Hong et al., 2021; Lai & Wang, 2015; Li & Wang, 2019; Turan et al., 2015), the research on online health consultations is very limited. Since most of these studies have examined the behavioral intention or intention to use online services, the decision-making process from online to offline health services remains unclear. In addition, patients exhibit different degrees of behavioral intentions for different payment types (e.g., free or paid consultation). To the best of our knowledge, no prior studies have investigated the moderating effects of payment types on online and offline health services. Therefore, this study aims to fill the gaps by understanding patients’ decision-making processes in groups of different payment types.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 38: 1 Issue (2026)
Volume 37: 1 Issue (2025)
Volume 36: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 35: 3 Issues (2023)
Volume 34: 10 Issues (2022)
Volume 33: 6 Issues (2021)
Volume 32: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 31: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 30: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 29: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 28: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 27: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 26: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 25: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 24: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 23: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 22: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 21: 4 Issues (2009)
Volume 20: 4 Issues (2008)
Volume 19: 4 Issues (2007)
Volume 18: 4 Issues (2006)
Volume 17: 4 Issues (2005)
Volume 16: 4 Issues (2004)
Volume 15: 4 Issues (2003)
Volume 14: 4 Issues (2002)
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2001)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2000)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (1999)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (1998)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (1997)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (1996)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (1995)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (1994)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (1993)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (1992)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (1991)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (1990)
Volume 1: 3 Issues (1989)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing