IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i8p2376-d224813.html

Factors Affecting Chinese Young Adults’ Acceptance of Connected Health

Author

Listed:
  • Lin Jia

    (School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
    Sustainable Development Research Institute for Economy and Society of Beijing, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Yuting Tan

    (School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Feiyu Han

    (School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Yi Zhou

    (School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Chu Zhang

    (School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Yufei Zhang

    (School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China)

Abstract

The global health care industry faces several challenges, such as an aging population, insufficient medical resources, and uneven allocation of high-quality medical resources. These challenges impede the development of a sustainable medical care system. Connected health aims to relieve these challenges by deploying information technology in healthcare. However, there is a lack of research on adoption of connected health and as a result, its acceptance rate is still low. This study summarized 25 potential factors that may affect its acceptance, and ranked their importance by performing a best–worst scaling experiment. Fifteen important factors were distinguished, which included nine technological factors, five individual factors, and one environmental factor. To explore how these factors affect individuals’ acceptance of connected health, this study conducted a qualitative study based on grounded theory. We coded the contents collected in a semi-structural interview by applying open coding, axial coding, and selective coding techniques. Finally, nine core categories were distinguished, and a conceptual model was proposed to explain how these core categories affect individuals’ acceptance of connected health. This study deepens our understanding of factors affecting the acceptance of connected health and helps build a sustainable medical care system.

Suggested Citation

  • Lin Jia & Yuting Tan & Feiyu Han & Yi Zhou & Chu Zhang & Yufei Zhang, 2019. "Factors Affecting Chinese Young Adults’ Acceptance of Connected Health," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-22, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:8:p:2376-:d:224813
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/8/2376/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/8/2376/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loureiro, Maria L. & Dominguez Arcos, Fernando, 2012. "Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 381-394.
    2. Andrea Carugati & Walter Fernández & Lapo Mola & Cecilia Rossignoli, 2018. "My choice, your problem? Mandating IT use in large organisational networks," Post-Print hal-01927380, HAL.
    3. Louviere, Jordan & Lings, Ian & Islam, Towhidul & Gudergan, Siegfried & Flynn, Terry, 2013. "An introduction to the application of (case 1) best–worst scaling in marketing research," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 292-303.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sonia Chien-I Chen & Chenglian Liu & Ridong Hu, 2020. "Fad or Trend? Rethinking the Sustainability of Connected Health," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-22, February.
    2. Chenming Peng & Hong Zhao & Sha Zhang, 2021. "Determinants and Cross-National Moderators of Wearable Health Tracker Adoption: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, December.

    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. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2023. "R packages and tutorial for case 1 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    2. Qingmeng Tong & Lu Zhang & Junbiao Zhang, 2017. "Evaluation of GHG Mitigation Measures in Rice Cropping and Effects of Farmer’s Characteristics: Evidence from Hubei, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Roberto Sañudo & Eneko Echaniz & Borja Alonso & Rubén Cordera, 2019. "Addressing the Importance of Service Attributes in Railways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, June.
    4. Van Wyngaarden, Sarah & Anders, Sven M., 2021. "Canadian Farmer Policy and Agency Preferences in Agri-Environmental Best Management Practice Adoption," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313851, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Shehely Parvin & Paul Wang & Jashim Uddin, 2016. "Using best-worst scaling method to examine consumers’ value preferences: A multidimensional perspective," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1199110-119, December.
    6. Arias, Juan F. & Bachmann, Chris, 2022. "Quantifying the relative importance of rapid transit implementation barriers: Evidence from ecuador," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    7. Cooper, Bethany & Crase, Lin & Rose, John M., 2018. "Cost-reflective pricing: empirical insights into irrigators’ preferences for water tariffs," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(2), April.
    8. Hammerle, Mara & White, Lee V. & Sturmberg, Bjorn, 2023. "Solar for renters: Investigating investor perspectives of barriers and policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    9. David A. Hensher & Chinh Ho, 2016. "Identifying a behaviourally relevant choice set from stated choice data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 197-217, March.
    10. Alisa E White & David A Lutz & Richard B Howarth & José R Soto, 2018. "Small-scale forestry and carbon offset markets: An empirical study of Vermont Current Use forest landowner willingness to accept carbon credit programs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, August.
    11. Tiganis, Antonios & Chrysochou, Polymeros & Mitkidis, Panagiotis & Krystallis, Athanasios, 2025. "Social order or social justice? The relationship of political ideology with consumer preferences for Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    12. PK Sarma, 2020. "Investigating Consumers Preference on Fresh Vegetables in Bangladesh: Best-Worst Scaling Approach," Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 24(1), pages 15-23, March.
    13. Ochieng’, Brian J. & Hobbs, Jill E., 2016. "Incentives for cattle producers to adopt an E. Coli vaccine: An application of best–worst scaling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 78-87.
    14. Davis, Katrina J & Burton, Michael & Kragt, Marit E, "undated". "Discrete choice models: scale heterogeneity and why it matters," Working Papers 235373, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    15. Agnew, Scott & Dargusch, Paul, 2017. "Consumer preferences for household-level battery energy storage," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 609-617.
    16. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Melania Salazar‐Ordóñez & Rubén Granado‐Díaz, 2025. "Consumer preferences toward new circular bioeconomy agri‐food products," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(2), pages 2614-2633, April.
    17. Balcombe, Paul & Rigby, Dan & Azapagic, Adisa, 2014. "Investigating the importance of motivations and barriers related to microgeneration uptake in the UK," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 403-418.
    18. Elizabeth S. Byrd & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar & Benjamin M. Gramig, 2018. "Presentation matters: Number of attributes presented impacts estimated preferences," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 377-389, March.
    19. Ákos Münnich & Emese Vargáné Karsai & Jenő Nagy, 2022. "A real-time network-based approach for analysing best–worst data types," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-24, January.
    20. Katja Woelfl & Lutz Kaufmann & Craig R. Carter, 2023. "In the eye of the beholder: A configurational exploration of perceived deceptive supplier behavior in negotiations," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 59(2), pages 33-61, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:8:p:2376-:d:224813. 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.