Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Original Paper

Patient Acceptance of Prescribed and Fully Reimbursed mHealth Apps in Germany: An UTAUT2-based Online Survey Study

Authors: Marie Uncovska, Bettina Freitag, Sven Meister, Leonard Fehring

Published in: Journal of Medical Systems | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

The study aims to (1) investigate current levels of patient acceptance of mHealth in Germany; (2) determine the influencing factors of patients' intention to use, and (3) test the influence of prescription and reimbursement status on patient acceptance. Online survey with 1349 participants, of which 1051 were complete and included for statistical analysis, from a broad cross-section of the German population, addressing both users of mobile health (mHealth) applications and people without prior experience. SEM modeling based on a combination of two theoretical frameworks: the extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and Health Protective Behavior Theories were used to assess acceptance. Users of mHealth in Germany are mostly patients between the ages of 30 – 50 with mental health or endocrine conditions. General willingness to use mHealth apps / DiGAs (mHealth apps fully reimbursed by social health insurance) is high at 76%, especially if they are governmentally certified, however only 27% of respondents were willing to pay out of pocket. With the exception of a spike in performance expectancy and data security, DiGAs lack a clear differentiation from mHealth apps. Perceived self-efficacy and performance expectancy are significant predictors of willingness to use digital health interventions; with age, attitude, and e-literacy being key demographic predictors. A key takeaway for regulators, providers of mHealth apps/ DiGAs, and other stakeholders involved in mHealth adoption is the importance of addressing negative beliefs early on, targeted communication around effortless usage of mHealth services across age groups and demographics, and focus on highlighting expected benefits of mHealth app/ DiGA usage.

Available only for authorised users

C. Ernsting et al., “Using Smartphones and Health Apps to Change and Manage Health Behaviors: A Population-Based Survey,” J Med Internet Res 2017;19(4):e101 https://www.jmir.org/2017/4/e101, vol. 19, no. 4, p. e6838, Apr. 2017, https://doi.org/10.2196/JMIR.6838.

M. Lingg and V. Lütschg, “Health system stakeholders’ perspective on the role of mobile health and its adoption in the swiss health system: Qualitative study,” JMIR Mhealth Uhealth, vol. 8, no. 5, May 2020, https://doi.org/10.2196/17315.

K. Morton et al., “Using digital interventions for self-management of chronic physical health conditions: A meta-ethnography review of published studies,” Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 100, no. 4. Elsevier Ireland Ltd, pp. 616–635, Apr. 01, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.10.019.

S. P. Keehan et al., “National health expenditure projections, 2014-24: spending growth faster than recent trends,” Health Aff (Millwood), vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1407–1417, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1377/HLTHAFF.2015.0600.CrossRefPubMed

R. Suzman, J. R. Beard, T. Boerma, and S. Chatterji, “Health in an ageing world - What do we know?,” The Lancet, vol. 385, no. 9967, pp. 484–486, Feb. 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61597-X.CrossRef

WHO Global Observatory for eHealth., mHealth: new horizons for health through mobile technologies: second global survey on eHealth. , vol. 3. World Health Organization, 2011.

“Statista: Health Apps Worldwide,” 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/779910/health-apps-available-ios-worldwide/ (accessed May 16, 2022).

D. W. Bates, A. Landman, and D. M. Levine, “Health Apps and Health Policy: What Is Needed?,” JAMA, vol. 320, no. 19, pp. 1975–1976, Nov. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.2018.14378.CrossRefPubMed

T. B. Plante et al., “User experience of instant blood pressure: exploring reasons for the popularity of an inaccurate mobile health app,” npj Digital Medicine 2018 1:1, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–6, Aug. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-018-0039-z.

10.

Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte, “Das Fast-Track-Verfahren für digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen (DiGA) nach § 139e SGB V. Ein Leitfaden für Hersteller, Leistungserbringer und Anwender,” BfArM, 2021. https://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Medizinprodukte/diga_leitfaden.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

11.

R. S. Palacholla et al., “Provider- And patient-related barriers to and facilitators of digital health technology adoption for hypertension management: Scoping review,” JMIR Cardio, vol. 3, no. 1. JMIR Publications Inc., Jan. 01, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2196/11951.

12.

Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte, “DiGA-Verzeichnis,” BfArM, 2022. https://diga.bfarm.de/de/verzeichnis?type=%5B%5D (accessed Jan. 18, 2022).

13.

YouGov, “Befragung: Apps auf Rezept | SBK,” SBK, 2021.

14.

F. Dahlhausen, M. Zinner, L. Bieske, J. P. Ehlers, P. Boehme, and L. Fehring, “Physicians’ Attitudes Toward Prescribable mHealth Apps and Implications for Adoption in Germany: Mixed Methods Study,” JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021;9(11):e33012 https://mhealth.jmir.org/2021/11/e33012, vol. 9, no. 11, p. e33012, Nov. 2021, https://doi.org/10.2196/33012.

15.

V. Venkatesh, J. Y. L. Thong, and X. Xu, “Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 1, p. 157, 2012, https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412.CrossRef

16.

A. Liberati et al., “The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration,” J Clin Epidemiol, vol. 62, no. 10, pp. e1–e34, Oct. 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2009.06.006.CrossRefPubMed

17.

D. Harborth and S. Pape, “GERMAN TRANSLATION OF THE UNIFIED THEORY OF ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY 2 (UTAUT2) QUESTIONNAIRE,” 2018.

18.

T. Koivumäki, S. Pekkarinen, M. Lappi, J. Vaïsänen, J. Juntunen, and M. Pikkarainen, “Consumer adoption of future mydata-based preventive ehealth services: An acceptance model and survey study,” J Med Internet Res, vol. 19, no. 12, Dec. 2017, https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7821.

19.

A. Bandura, “Health promotion by social cognitive means,” Health Education and Behavior, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 143–164, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104263660.CrossRefPubMed

20.

I. M. Rosenstock, “Health Belief Model,” in Encyclopedia of psychology, vol. 4, A. E. Kazdin, Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 78–80.

21.

R. Van Der Vaart, V. Atema, and A. W. M. Evers, “Guided online self-management interventions in primary care: A survey on use, facilitators, and barriers,” BMC Fam Pract, vol. 17, no. 1, Mar. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0424-0.

22.

R. Hoque and G. Sorwar, “Understanding factors influencing the adoption of mHealth by the elderly: An extension of the UTAUT model,” Int J Med Inform, vol. 101, pp. 75–84, May 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.02.002.CrossRefPubMed

23.

N. S. Klaver, J. van de Klundert, R. J. G. M. van den Broek, and M. Askari, “Relationship Between Perceived Risks of Using mHealth Applications and the Intention to Use Them Among Older Adults in the Netherlands: Cross-sectional Study,” JMIR Mhealth Uhealth, vol. 9, no. 8, p. e26845, Aug. 2021, https://doi.org/10.2196/26845.

24.

Z. Deng, “Understanding public users’ adoption of mobile health service,” International Journal of Mobile Communications, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 351–373, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2013.055748.CrossRef

25.

S. Prentice-Dunn and R. W. Rogers, “Protection Motivation Theory and preventive health: beyond the Health Belief Model,” Health Educ Res, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 153–161, 1986, https://doi.org/10.1093/her/1.3.153.CrossRef

26.

E.-M. Schomakers, C. Lidynia, L. S. Vervier, A. Calero Valdez, and M. Ziefle, “Applying an Extended UTAUT2 Model to Explain User Acceptance of Lifestyle and Therapy Mobile Health Apps: Survey Study,” JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022;10(1):e27095 https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/1/e27095, vol. 10, no. 1, p. e27095, Jan. 2022, https://doi.org/10.2196/27095.

27.

M. Rajak and K. Shaw, “An extension of technology acceptance model for mHealth user adoption,” Technol Soc, vol. 67, p. 101800, Nov. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHSOC.2021.101800.

28.

W. Boontarig, “Effect of personality factors on attitude towards the adoption of health information via online social networking,” 20th International Computer Science and Engineering Conference: Smart Ubiquitos Computing and Knowledge, ICSEC 2016, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSEC.2016.7859897.

29.

M. Cimperman, M. Makovec Brenčič, and P. Trkman, “Analyzing older users’ home telehealth services acceptance behavior-applying an Extended UTAUT model,” Int J Med Inform, vol. 90, pp. 22–31, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.03.002.

30.

A. Dzimiera, “Consumer’s Acceptance of Mobile Health Technologies in Germany Consume’s Acceptance of Mobile Health Technologies in Germany,” no. May, p. 69, 2017.

31.

S. Idrish, A. Rifat, M. Iqbal, and N. Nisha, “Mobile health technology evaluation: Innovativeness and efficacy vs. cost effectiveness,” International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1–21, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4018/IJTHI.2017040101.CrossRef

32.

J. Jewer, “Patients’ intention to use online postings of ED wait times: A modified UTAUT model,” Int J Med Inform, vol. 112, no. January, pp. 34–39, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.01.008.

33.

I. M. Macedo, “Predicting the acceptance and use of information and communication technology by older adults: An empirical examination of the revised UTAUT2,” Comput Human Behav, vol. 75, pp. 935–948, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.013.CrossRef

34.

Y. J. Moon and Y. H. Hwang, “A study of effects of UTAUT-based factors on acceptance of smart health care services,” Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol. 354, pp. 317–324, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47895-0_38.CrossRef

35.

N. Nisha, M. Iqbal, and A. Rifat, “The changing paradigm of health and mobile phones: An innovation in the health care system,” Journal of Global Information Management, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 19–46, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.2019010102.CrossRef

36.

P. Duarte and J. C. Pinho, “A mixed methods UTAUT2-based approach to assess mobile health adoption,” J Bus Res, vol. 102, pp. 140–150, Sep. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.022.CrossRef

37.

B. Breil, L. Kremer, S. Hennemann, and J. Apolinário-Hagen, “Acceptance of mHealth Apps for Self-Management Among People with Hypertension,” Stud Health Technol Inform, vol. 267, pp. 282–288, Sep. 2019, https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI190839.CrossRefPubMed

38.

A. Nunes, T. Limpo, and S. L. Castro, “Acceptance of Mobile Health Applications: Examining Key Determinants and Moderators,” Front Psychol, vol. 10, p. 2791, Dec. 2019, https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2019.02791/BIBTEX.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

T. Salgado, J. Tavares, and T. Oliveira, “Drivers of Mobile Health Acceptance and Use From the Patient Perspective: Survey Study and Quantitative Model Development,” JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020;8(7):e17588 https://mhealth.jmir.org/2020/7/e17588, vol. 8, no. 7, p. e17588, Jul. 2020, https://doi.org/10.2196/17588.

40.

D. Tao, T. Wang, T. Wang, T. Zhang, X. Zhang, and X. Qu, “A systematic review and meta-analysis of user acceptance of consumer-oriented health information technologies,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 104. Elsevier Ltd, Mar. 01, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.023.

41.

E. M. Schomakers, C. Lidynia, and M. Ziefle, “Exploring the acceptance of mhealth applications - do acceptance patterns vary depending on context?,” in Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 2019, vol. 795, pp. 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94619-1_6.CrossRef

42.

Y. K. Dwivedi, M. A. Shareef, A. C. Simintiras, B. Lal, and V. Weerakkody, “A generalised adoption model for services: A cross-country comparison of mobile health (m-health),” Gov Inf Q, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 174–187, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.06.003.CrossRef

43.

G. M. A. A. Quaosar, M. R. Hoque, and Y. Bao, “Investigating factors affecting elderly’s intention to use m-health services: An empirical study,” Telemedicine and e-Health, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 309–314, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2017.0111.CrossRefPubMed

44.

M. Z. Alam, Md. R. Hoque, W. Hu, and Z. Barua, “Factors influencing the adoption of mHealth services in a developing country: A patient-centric study,” Int J Inf Manage, vol. 50, pp. 128–143, Feb. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.04.016.CrossRef

45.

H. O. Woldeyohannes and O. K. Ngwenyama, “Factors Influencing Acceptance and Continued Use of mHealth Apps,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 10293 LNCS, pp. 239–256, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58481-2_19.

46.

M. M. D. Alam, M. Z. Alam, S. A. Rahman, and S. K. Taghizadeh, “Factors influencing mHealth adoption and its impact on mental well-being during COVID-19 pandemic: A SEM-ANN approach,” J Biomed Inform, vol. 116, p. 103722, Apr. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBI.2021.103722.

47.

A. van Haasteren, F. Gille, M. Fadda, and E. Vayena, “Development of the mHealth App Trustworthiness checklist,” Digit Health, vol. 5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207619886463.

48.

A. Adjekum, A. Blasimme, and E. Vayena, “Elements of trust in digital health systems: Scoping review,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 20, no. 12. JMIR Publications Inc., 2018. https://doi.org/10.2196/11254.

49.

C. H. Li, “The performance of ML, DWLS, and ULS estimation with robust corrections in structural equation models with ordinal variables,” Psychol Methods, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 369–387, Sep. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1037/MET0000093.CrossRefPubMed

50.

BPtK, “Studie zu Wartezeiten in der ambulanten psychotherapeutischen Versorgung,” 2019. https://www.bptk.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/20180411_BPtK-Studie_Wartezeiten_2018.pdf (accessed Jun. 07, 2022).

51.

R. Cudeck and M. Browne, “of Assessing Model Fit: Testing Structural Equation Models,” SAGE, vol. 154, p. 136, 1993.

52.

L. T. Hu and P. M. Bentler, “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives,” vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–55, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

53.

B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell, “Using Multivariate Statistics Title: Using multivariate statistics,” 2019.

54.

M. Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C. & Sarstedt, A primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications, 2014.

55.

acatech, Körber Stiftung, and U. Stuttgart, “Technik Radar 2022,” 2022. https://www.acatech.de/publikation/technikradar-2022/ (accessed Jun. 07, 2022).

56.

G. Kenny and R. Connolly, “Towards an inclusive world: Exploring m-health adoption across generations,” Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2017, no. September, pp. 1129–1144, 2017.

57.

F. Dahlhausen, M. Zinner, L. Bieske, J. P. Ehlers, G. Q. P. Boehme, and L. Fehring, “There’s an app for that , but nobody’s using it : Insights on improving patient access and adherence to digital therapeutics in Germany,” Digital Health, SAGE, vol. 8:1-12, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076221104672.CrossRef

58.

GKV-SV, “GKV-Spitzenverband stellt DiGA-Bericht vor,” 2022. https://www.healthcaremarketing.eu/unternehmen/detail.php?rubric=M%E4rkte&nr=84338 (accessed May 30, 2022).

59.

G. Gourzoulidis, G. Kourlaba, P. Stafylas, G. Giamouzis, J. Parissis, and N. Maniadakis, “Association between copayment, medication adherence and outcomes in the management of patients with diabetes and heart failure,” Health Policy (New York), vol. 121, no. 4, pp. 363–377, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.02.008.CrossRef

60.

S. DellaVigna and U. Malmendier, “Paying not to go to the gym,” American Economic Review, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 694–719, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1257/AER.96.3.694.CrossRef

61.

H. Stewart and J. Jürjens, “Data security and consumer trust in FinTech Innovation in Germany Information & Computer Security Data security and consumer trust in FinTech Innovation in Germany Article information :,” Information & Computer Security, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 109–128, 2018.CrossRef

62.

S. Trepte and P. K. Masur, “Privacy Attitudes , Perceptions , and behaviors of the German population,” Technical Report for “Forum Privatheit und selbstbestimmtes Leben in der digitalen Welt,” no. February, 2017, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25818.95684.

63.

L. Buhr, S. Schicktanz, and E. Nordmeyer, “Attitudes Toward Mobile Apps for Pandemic Research among Smartphone Users in Germany: National Survey,” JMIR Mhealth Uhealth, vol. 10, no. 1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.2196/31857.

64.

I. Im, S. Hong, and M. S. Kang, “An international comparison of technology adoption: Testing the UTAUT model,” Information and Management, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.09.001.CrossRef

Title: Patient Acceptance of Prescribed and Fully Reimbursed mHealth Apps in Germany: An UTAUT2-based Online Survey Study
Authors: Marie Uncovska
Bettina Freitag
Sven Meister
Leonard Fehring
Publication date: 01-12-2023
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Medical Systems / Issue 1/2023
Print ISSN: 0148-5598
Electronic ISSN: 1573-689X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-023-01910-x

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Patient Acceptance of Prescribed and Fully Reimbursed mHealth Apps in Germany: An UTAUT2-based Online Survey Study

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Medical Image Encryption using Biometric Image Texture Fusion

Design and Evaluation of a Technological Platform for Monitoring Patients with Dementia: Unifying Requirements from Mexican Day Centers

Shape Matters: A Neglected Feature of Medication Safety

AI Tools for Assessing Human Fertility Using Risk Factors: A State-of-the-Art Review

The Current State and Usage of European Electronic Cross-border Health Services (eHDSI)

Does Legislation Impede Data Sharing in Australia Across Institutions and Jurisdictions? A Scoping Review