JMIR J Med Internet Res Journal of Medical Internet Research 1438-8871 JMIR Publications Toronto, Canada v24i9e25959 36103227 10.2196/25959 Review Review Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for eHealth and Its Influencing Factors: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Mavragani Amaryllis Iftikhar Aleeha Behzadifar Masoud Kim Min Seo Xie Zhenzhen PhD 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1310-5007 Chen Jiayin MSc 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2775-3400 Or Calvin Kalun PhD 1
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering The University of Hong Kong Room 8-7, 8/f, Haking Wong Building The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road Hong Kong China (Hong Kong) 852 3917 2587 klor@hku.hk
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9819-8865 Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong China (Hong Kong) Corresponding Author: Calvin Kalun Or klor@hku.hk 9 2022 14 9 2022 24 9 e25959 22 11 2020 7 1 2021 15 6 2022 11 8 2022 ©Zhenzhen Xie, Jiayin Chen, Calvin Kalun Or. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 14.09.2022. 2022

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

 Background

Despite the great potential of eHealth, substantial costs are involved in its implementation, and it is essential to know whether these costs can be justified by its benefits. Such needs have led to an increased interest in measuring the benefits of eHealth, especially using the willingness to pay (WTP) metric as an accurate proxy for consumers’ perceived benefits of eHealth. This offered us an opportunity to systematically review and synthesize evidence from the literature to better understand WTP for eHealth and its influencing factors.

 Objective

This study aimed to provide a systematic review of WTP for eHealth and its influencing factors.

 Methods

This study was performed and reported as per the Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and PsycINFO databases were searched from their inception to April 19, 2022. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to calculate WTP values for eHealth (at 2021 US dollar rates) and meta-regression analyses to examine the factors affecting WTP.

 Results

A total of 30 articles representing 35 studies were included in the review. We found that WTP for eHealth varied across studies; when expressed as a 1-time payment, it ranged from US $0.88 to US $191.84, and when expressed as a monthly payment, it ranged from US $5.25 to US $45.64. Meta-regression analyses showed that WTP for eHealth was negatively associated with the percentages of women (β=−.76; P<.001) and positively associated with the percentages of college-educated respondents (β=.63; P<.001) and a country’s gross domestic product per capita (multiples of US $1000; β=.03; P<.001). Compared with eHealth provided through websites, people reported a lower WTP for eHealth provided through asynchronous communication (β=−1.43; P<.001) and a higher WTP for eHealth provided through medical devices (β=.66; P<.001), health apps (β=.25; P=.01), and synchronous communication (β=.58; P<.001). As for the methods used to measure WTP, single-bounded dichotomous choice (β=2.13; P<.001), double-bounded dichotomous choice (β=2.20; P<.001), and payment scale (β=1.11; P<.001) were shown to obtain higher WTP values than the open-ended format. Compared with ex ante evaluations, ex post evaluations were shown to obtain lower WTP values (β=−.37; P<.001).

 Conclusions

WTP for eHealth varied significantly depending on the study population, modality used to provide eHealth, and methods used to measure it. WTP for eHealth was lower among certain population segments, suggesting that these segments may be at a disadvantage in terms of accessing and benefiting from eHealth. We also identified the modalities of eHealth that were highly valued by consumers and offered suggestions for the design of eHealth interventions. In addition, we found that different methods of measuring WTP led to significantly different WTP estimates, highlighting the need to undertake further methodological explorations of approaches to elicit WTP values.

 systematic review meta-analysis willingness to pay eHealth contingent valuation discrete choice experiment mobile phone Introduction

Advances in broadband technology and the Internet of Things have enabled the broad implementation of eHealth—the provision or acquisition of health information or services through electronic processes [1-7]. In recent years, a broad spectrum of eHealth interventions using various modalities has been developed and examined in health care research. Examples include websites, diagnostic and monitoring devices, smartphone apps, virtual reality systems, telephone and video calls, and electronic messages that provide health information or services [8-10]. Researchers have implemented these eHealth interventions into a range of health care activities, including teleconsultation [11,12], remote patient monitoring [13], self-management of diseases [14-16], disease rehabilitation [17], and disease prevention [18]. Promising results have emerged from these studies, which showed that eHealth interventions could facilitate the delivery of health care and improve patient outcomes [9-17]. It has also been shown that eHealth enables consumers to easily obtain information about health issues for decision-making, which could lead to more effective care, patient empowerment, and time savings [8,18-22].

Although eHealth is considered a promising complement to conventional health care systems, there are significant costs involved in its implementation arising from the purchase, development, and maintenance of hardware and software [23]. Therefore, when deciding to implement eHealth for personal use or public health, decision-makers need solid evidence that the costs of eHealth can be justified by its benefits [24]. This requires the quantification and measurement of the benefits of eHealth, which can then be aggregated with the costs of eHealth to understand its cost-effectiveness [25].

To measure the benefits of eHealth, willingness to pay (WTP) is a commonly used metric [26,27]. Welfare economics defines WTP as the maximum amount of money an individual is willing to pay for 1 unit of a good or service; it is an accurate proxy for the welfare (benefits) derived from that good or service [28-30]. A major advantage of the WTP approach is that it summarizes the benefits in monetary terms, making it comparable with the costs for use in cost-benefit analyses [26,31]. Another advantage is that WTP illustrates the perceived benefits from the perspective of consumers, which can be further analyzed to represent consumer preferences [32,33]. Therefore, the WTP approach is suitable for measuring the benefits of eHealth, as it can generate findings for the effective implementation of eHealth and provide insights into designing better eHealth technology and services.

Many studies [34-36] have examined consumers’ WTP for eHealth using either of the 2 mainstream methods. The first is contingent valuation, a survey-based method in which people are asked to indicate the maximum price they are willing to pay for eHealth (eg, services) or associated eHealth technology. The second is the discrete choice experiment, sometimes referred to as conjoint analysis, which involves asking people to state their preference for hypothetical alternatives that describe eHealth or eHealth technology. Regardless of the methods used, these studies have provided insights into consumers’ perceived eHealth benefits and the factors affecting these perceptions. If we synthesize and analyze these studies, we can obtain practical implications for the design, development, and implementation of eHealth and suggestions for future research. Thus, we systematically reviewed previous studies on consumers’ WTP for eHealth and synthesized their findings through a meta-analysis to understand consumers’ WTP for eHealth and examine its influencing factors. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind.

 Methods Overview

This review was performed and reported according to the Cochrane Collaboration [37] and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Multimedia Appendix 1 provides the checklist) [38]. A total of 2 researchers (ZX and JC) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the articles identified in the literature search for eligibility, reviewed the full texts of potentially eligible articles for final inclusion in the review, extracted data from the final sample, critically appraised their methodological quality, and assessed the quality of the evidence. All disagreements between them were resolved through a consensus-based discussion.

 Search Strategy

We searched PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and PsycINFO databases from their inception to April 19, 2022, to obtain a preliminary list of relevant studies. A search strategy was developed based on the following concepts combined using “AND”: WTP, money, and eHealth. For each concept, a set of keywords and their synonyms and variations were developed and combined in the search strategy using “OR.” The following search terms were developed: (“willingness to pay” OR “WTP” OR “valuation” OR “preference”) AND (“cost” OR “price” OR “expense” OR “money”) AND (“eHealth” OR “electronic health” OR “digital health” OR “mHealth” OR “mobile” OR “web” OR “Internet” OR “online” OR “tele*” OR “medical informatics” OR “medical information systems”). These search terms were used to search for titles and abstracts in all the selected databases, with no filters or limits placed on the search.

 Eligibility Criteria and Study Selection

We included all studies that (1) recruited participants who were consumers of eHealth, (2) measured and reported participants’ WTP for eHealth or eHealth technology, and (3) were published in a peer-reviewed English-language journal. Studies were excluded if they examined WTP from a public payer’s perspective (eg, WTP for public health programs through taxation) or a caregiver’s perspective (eg, parents’ WTP for their children). We also excluded reviews, case studies, poster presentations, and conference presentations but examined their references to identify additional relevant articles for inclusion. We also manually searched the reference lists of studies in the final sample for additional relevant articles.

 Data Extraction and Management

We extracted the following data from each study: country where the study was conducted, year in which it was conducted, sample size, sample characteristics, modality used to provide eHealth, details of the eHealth examined, WTP, method used to measure WTP, and WTP factors examined. Regarding the methods used to measure WTP, the extracted information included the formats of the questions posed to the study participants (eg, open-ended questions, dichotomous choice, and bidding games), whether the participants had used eHealth at the time of evaluation (ex post or ex ante), and how zero responses were dealt with (all zero responses excluded, all zero responses included, or protest zero responses excluded). We contacted the authors for clarification and verification of cases where relevant data were missing or incomplete.

 Critical Appraisal of Methodological Quality

The included studies were critically appraised for methodological quality using 17 criteria based on the Hoy risk of bias assessment tool [39] and a set of criteria specific for assessing WTP studies (Multimedia Appendix 2) [29,40].

 Data Analysis Descriptive Statistics and Narrative Synthesis of the Studies in the Final Sample

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the characteristics of the included studies. Narrative synthesis was used to synthesize the WTP findings for eHealth in the studies, for which the means, SDs, 95% CIs, medians, IQRs, and ranges were reported. All WTP values were calculated at 2021 US dollar rates to facilitate quantitative synthesis and comparison. First, the WTP values in other currencies were converted to US dollars based on the purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rate of the year in which the study was conducted, and then they were converted to 2021 US dollar values using gross domestic product (GDP) deflators. The PPP exchange rate and GDP deflator data were obtained from the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook database [41]. For studies that did not report the year in which they were conducted, we used the year preceding the publication year of the articles for currency conversion.

 Random-Effects Meta-analyses to Measure WTP

We performed random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the overall WTP value for eHealth and the WTP value for eHealth by different subgroups (ie, modalities used to provide eHealth and the region where the study was conducted) [42]. The WTP values were log-transformed to reduce skewness [43]. In the meta-analysis, the weight of each study was the inverse of the WTP variance. For studies that did not report variance (or SD), we obtained an estimate using (1) SE and sample size, (2) 95% CIs and sample size, (3) IQRs, or (4) range and sample size [37,44]. The I2 test was used to measure heterogeneity in the synthesized studies [45], and the Egger test was used to assess the possibility of publication bias [46].

 Meta-regression Analyses to Examine the Factors Affecting WTP

Univariate meta-regressions were conducted to examine whether WTP for eHealth was influenced by explanatory variables, including gender, age, and education level of the study sample; per capita GDP of the country where the study was conducted and the year in which it was conducted; the modality used to provide eHealth (ie, websites, medical devices, health apps, asynchronous communication, and synchronous communication); the format of the WTP questions (ie, open-ended, single-bounded dichotomous choice, double-bounded dichotomous choice, or payment scale); whether the participants of the study had used eHealth at the time of evaluation (ex post vs ex ante); and whether zero responses were excluded from the analysis of WTP values. A mixed-effects log-linear regression model was used, where the payment horizon (1-time or monthly payment) was modeled as a random effect and the explanatory variable was modeled as a fixed effect. We also narratively synthesized the WTP factors for eHealth examined in the included studies. All statistical analyses were performed in R (version 4.0.2, R Foundation for Statistical Computing) software using the metafor package.

 Assessment of the Quality of Evidence

The quality of evidence of the meta-analysis results was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework [47]. We adopted the framework for rating the relative importance of outcomes (eg, values, preferences, and outcome importance) [48,49], which was more suitable for rating cross-sectional WTP surveys and discrete choice experiments than previous GRADE guidelines that focused on the effects of interventions. For each WTP outcome, the quality of evidence started from “high” and was downgraded by 1 level for every serious issue identified in the domains of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. The risk of bias domain was assessed by inspecting the potential bias in participant selection, measurement instruments, data collection, and data analysis. The inconsistency domain was assessed using I2 values, and the GRADE quality was downgraded when I2≥50%. The indirectness domain was assessed using the indirectness of the population, outcomes, options, and methodologies used to elicit the values of the outcomes. The imprecision domain was assessed using the width of the CIs of the estimates and sample size. The publication bias domain was assessed using the Egger test, and GRADE quality was downgraded for statistically significant findings (P<.05) on this test.

 Results Literature Search and Selection Process

Figure 1 shows the literature search and selection process. The search yielded 6140 articles, of which 30 (0.49%) articles representing 35 WTP studies were identified as eligible and included in the final review.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram of the study selection process. WTP: willingness to pay.

 Study Characteristics

The characteristics of the studies included in this review are presented in Table 1. Appraisals of the methodological quality are presented in Multimedia Appendix 2.

Summary of the characteristics of the final studies (N=35).

Characteristics Values, n (%)
Study location
Africa 2 (6)
Asia 8 (23)
Europe 13 (37)
North America 9 (26)
Oceania 3 (9)
Year of publication
2003-2010 8 (23)
2011-2015 8 (23)
2016-2021 19 (54)
Modality used to provide eHealth
Websites 5 (14)
Medical devices 8 (23)
Health apps 5 (14)
Asynchronous communication (eg, SMS text messaging or email) 8 (23)
Synchronous communication (eg, telephone call or video call) 7 (20)
Not specified 2 (6)
Method used to measure willingness to pay
Contingent valuation 26 (74)
Open-ended questions 13 (37)
Single-bounded dichotomous choice questions 1 (3)
Double-bounded dichotomous choice questions 4 (11)
Payment scale questions 2 (6)
Bidding games 2 (6)
Single-bounded dichotomous choice+payment scale questions 1 (3)
Not reported 3 (9)
Discrete choice experiment 9 (26)
WTP for eHealth: Narrative Synthesis

Table 2-Table 4 present the details of 74% (26/35) of studies that used contingent valuations and 26% (9/35) of studies that used discrete choice experiments.

Details of the 26 contingent valuation studies included in the final sample.

Study Country (year of study) Population and sample size (N) Age (years) Women (%) eHealth details Measurement of WTPa (format, ex ante or ex post, and zeros) WTP (PPPb, and 2021 US dollar value)
Contingent valuation studies that reported WTP as a 1-time payment (n=17)
Adedokun et al [50] Nigeria (2011) Patients at a family medicine unit (389) Mean 42.1 54 An SMS text messaging–based appointment scheduling service: patients sent an SMS text message to book a clinic appointment and received a confirmation SMS text message and another SMS text message reminding them of the appointment Open-ended; ex ante; all zeros excluded Mean 2.81 (SD 3.88), range 0.06-38.26
Belkora et al [51] United States (2007-2010) Patients with breast cancer (34) Mean 59 100 A telephone consultation planning service: before a clinical visit, a community health worker called the patient to check if they had any medical questions and then sent the list of questions to the patient’s physician Double-bounded dichotomous choice; ex post; all zeros included Mean 191.84 (SD 242.91)
Bergmo and Wangberg (1) [52] Norway (2003) Patients at a primary clinic (52) Mean 38 70 An internet-based messaging system that enabled patients to communicate with their health care providers by sending messages using a web browser Open-ended; ex ante; protest zeros excluded Mean 10.94 (95% CI 8.91-13.17); median 10.14 (IQR 5.07-20.26)
Bergmo and Wangberg (2) [52] Norway (2003) Patients at a primary clinic (38) Mean 37 61 Same as Bergmo and Wangberg (1) [52] Open-ended; ex post; protest zeros excluded Mean 7.30 (95% CI 5.47-8.91); median 7.09 (IQR 2.03-10.14)
Brandling-Bennet et al [53] Cambodia (2003) Patients at a clinic (49) Mean 39 61 A telemedicine service: local nurses recorded the medical history and conducted physical examinations of patients and sent this information to physicians at a remote place via email; the physicians would then reply with the treatment or referral decisions; the local nurses would execute the recommendations Not reported; ex post; all zeros excluded Median 0.90, range 0-72.53
Fawsitt et al (1) [54] Ireland (2015) Women in antenatal clinics (20) Mean and median not reported 100 A mobile app that provided information about cesarean section and surgical site infections: users recorded symptoms, temperature, heart rate, and pain level based on which the app would provide health advice (eg, check body temperature or contact a general practitioner) Open-ended; ex ante; all zeros included Mean 30.96 (SD 58.28); median 13.98
Fawsitt et al (2) [54] Ireland (2015) Women in antenatal clinics (116) Mean and median not reported 100 A mobile app that provided information about cesarean section and surgical site infections: users recorded symptoms, temperature, heart rate, and pain level, which would be checked daily by a midwife in the maternity hospital who would provide health advice to the user Open-ended; ex ante; all zeros included Mean 36.38 (SD 51.46); median 13.98
Fawsitt et al (3) [54] Ireland (2015) Women in antenatal clinics (44) Mean and median not reported 100 A telephone call–based helpline service: users called a midwife in the maternity hospital, who would provide health advice and instructions Open-ended; ex ante; all zeros included Mean 32.76 (SD 47.73); median 13.98
Kaga et al [55] Japan (2016) General population (305) Mean and median not reported 37 An internet-based telecare service for older adults, which connected the television at users’ homes to the internet: health care information was displayed on the television; if the television was not used for 3 days, a telephone call would be made to the user, and if they did not answer the call, neighborhood associations and civil servant committees would visit them to ensure that they were fine Double-bounded dichotomous choice; ex ante; all zeros included Mean 8.58; median 4.57
Ngan et al [56] Vietnam (2017) Smokers who intended to quit (433) Mean 33 0.8 An SMS text messaging–based smoking cessation service: SMS text messages with relevant health information, suggestions for controlling and preventing cravings, and encouragement were sent to users 2 to 4 times a day for 6 weeks Single-bounded dichotomous choice; ex ante; all zeros included Mean 59.99 (95% CI 46.92-73.07)
Raghu et al (1) [57] United States (2013-2014) Patients waiting for general consultation (214) Mean and median not reported Not reported A teledermoscopy service: a clinician at a health center used a smartphone (with a Canfield Dermscopefield) to capture images of skin lesions and send them to a dermatologist, who then wrote a medical note and sent it to the clinician Double-bounded dichotomous choice; ex ante; all zeros included Mean 63.12 (SD 44.66); median 55.77
Raghu et al (2) [57] United States (2013-2014) Patients with skin lesions (41) Mean and median not reported Not reported Same as Raghu et al (1) [57] Double-bounded dichotomous choice; ex ante; all zeros included Mean 59.81 (SD 30.33); median 54.83
Ramchandran et al [58] United States (2017) Patients with diabetes (23) Mean 56 52 A teleophthalmology service: a technician or nurse used a nonmydriatic fundus camera to take photos of the patient’s eye and send them to an ophthalmologist, who then replied with a diagnosis and recommended follow-up care Payment scale; ex ante; all zeros included Mean 29.96 (SD 8.53)
Rochat et al [59] Switzerland (2014) People visiting a travel clinic (162) Mean and median not reported 53 A telemedicine service for travelers providing pretravel information; medical advice for upcoming trips; and health advice when the traveler was abroad through telephone calls, video calls, or emails Not reported; ex ante; all zeros excluded Median 57.10 (IQR 34.26-57.10)
Ruby et al [60] United States (2008) Adolescents with persistent subthreshold depression (34) Mean 17 57 An internet-based depression prevention intervention for adolescents: 14 modules for depression prevention were provided through a website Not reported; ex post; all zeros included Median 50.15 (IQR 19.59-62.68); range 0-626.84
Shariful Islam et al [61] Bangladesh (2013-2014) Patients with type 2 diabetes (352) Mean 50 56 An SMS text message–based health service for patients with type 2 diabetes, which provided medication reminders and relevant health information (eg, diabetes complications and recommended diet and physical activities) through SMS text messages Open-ended; ex ante; all zeros included Median 0.88 (IQR 1.99)
Stahl et al [62] United States (2007-2008) Patients visiting a primary care physician (101) Mean 46 60 An internet-based primary care service: a primary care physician took the patient’s medical history, conducted a visual inspection, decided on treatment, and arranged follow-up care through videoconferencing Payment scale; ex post; all zeros included Mean 25.71 (SD 15.88)c
Contingent valuation studies that reported WTP as monthly payments: WTP per month (n=9)
Cocosila et al [63] Canada (2006-2007) General population (51) Median 21 57 An SMS text message–based health reminder service: users received SMS text messages reminding them to take vitamin C pills Open-ended; ex post; no zero responses Median 5.25; range 0.52-31.47
Contreras-Somoza et al [64] Spain, Serbia, Netherlands, France, Israel, Italy, or Slovenia (not reported) Patients aged >60 years with mild cognitive impairment (30) Mean 73.3 60 An internet-based information and communication technology platform (ehcoBUTLER system) for older people: the platform hosted several social and health apps to support the daily activities of older people and improve their health, quality of life, and independence Not reported; ex ante; all zeros excluded Median 14.64
Jacobs et al [65] Belgium (2009) General population (135) Mean 41 34 A cardiovascular disease prevention program with internet-based components: the program comprised cardiovascular risk assessment, communication, follow-up care, a website providing health information on cardiovascular disease, advice on physical activity and diet, guidelines for behavioral changes, and individual coaching by a health psychologist Single-bounded dichotomous choice+payment scale; ex post; all zeros included Mean 13.41 (SD 14.42); median 5.64
Rasche et al [66] Germany (2017) General population (96) Mean 63.8 51 A mobile app for fall prevention: the app had features such as detecting the risk of falling, recommendations for reducing this risk, storing other health-related data, and providing advice on how to prevent and respond to a fall Open-ended; ex ante; all zeros included Median 7.41 (IQR 14.83); range 0-118.61
Somers et al (1) [34] United Kingdom (2015) General population (1697) Mean 47 51 A mobile app for improving well-being outcomes: the app had features such as calling and messaging friends or families or local health care providers, setting health goals, tracking health status, sharing health data, and receiving information about the local community Open-ended; ex ante; all zeros included Mean 24.31; median 7.46; range 0-1344.36
Somers et al (2) [34] United Kingdom (2015) General population (305) Mean 48 72 Same as Somers et al (1) [34]. Open-ended; ex ante; ell zeros included Mean 20.13; median 7.46; range 0-896.62
Tran et al [67] Vietnam (2012) Patients with HIV or AIDS (1016) Mean 35.4 36 A mobile phone–based medication reminder service for patients with HIV: SMS text messages, telephone calls, or automated voice calls were used to remind patients to take their medication on time Not reported; ex ante; all zeros included Mean 8.42
Tsuji et al [68] Japan (not reported) General population (291) Mean and median not reported Not reported A telehealth system for older people: health-related data such as blood pressure, oxygen saturation, heart rhythm, electrical activity, and heart rates were measured at the user’s home and sent to a remote clinic where nurses studied them and reported any unusual symptoms to the user and physicians; monthly health reports were created and sent to users Bidding game; ex post; all zeros included Mean 45.64
Tsuji et al [69] Japan (not reported) General population (145) Mean 74 74 Same as Tsuji et al [68] Bidding game; ex ante; all zeros included Mean 29.68

aWTP: willingness to pay.

bPPP: purchasing power parity.

cThe WTP values were obtained by combining the WTP values for subgroups, as reported in the articles.

Demographic and eHealth details of the 9 discrete choice experiment studies included in the final sample.

Study Country (year of study) Population Sample size, N Age (years) Women (%) eHealth details
Discrete choice experiment studies that reported WTPa as a 1-time payment (n=6)
Buchanan et al [35] United Kingdom (2018) General population 734 Mean 47 51 Web-based consultation with a primary care physician
Park et al [70] South Korea (2009-2010) Patients in endocrinology and metabolism clinics 118 Mean 57 58 A telemedicine service for patients with diabetes
Snoswell et al [71] Australia (not reported) General population 113 Mean 40 74 A mobile teledermoscopy service for skin cancer screening: users used a dermoscopic smartphone attachment and app to take photos and send them to a dermatologist, along with relevant clinical information
Snoswell et al [36] Australia (2019) Patients who had a video consultation in the previous year 62 Mean and median not reported 62.9 Web-based consultation with a specialist physician through videoconferencing
Spinks et al [72] Australia (not reported) People aged 50 to 64 years at high risk of melanoma 35 Mean and median not reported 54 A teledermoscopy service for skin cancer screening: using a dermatoscope to take photos which were sent to a dermatologist for diagnosis
van der Pol and McKenzie [73] United Kingdom (not reported) General population 90 Mean and median not reported 62 A telemedicine service for ear, nose, and throat examination: patients sent endoscopic images to and videoconferenced with a specialist
Discrete choice experiment studies that reported WTP as monthly payments (n=3)
Ahn et al [74] South Korea (2011) General population 400 Mean 44 51 A telemedicine service system that measured vital signs of users and transmitted patient data to care providers
Chang et al [75] United States (2009-2010) General population 6271 Mean and median not reported 52 A web-based health service that provided remote diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, and consultation
Deal et al [76] Canada (not reported) Patients with cardiovascular disease 74 Mean 68.9 50 A web-based system that tracked and displayed patients’ details on 15 outcomes related to cardiovascular disease risk, the target value of these outcomes for better control of their condition, the last time the outcome was checked, and brief advice for patients and clinicians

aWTP: willingness to pay.

WTPa details of the 9 discrete choice experiment studies included in the final sample.

Study, attribute (reference level), and desired level or levels of the attribute Marginal WTP (PPPb, 2021 US dollar value)
Discrete choice experiment studies that reported WTP as a 1-time payment (n=6)
Buchanan et al [35]
How similar was your consultation to a traditional “face-to-face” appointment (the same)
Video consultation –7.02
Symptoms submitted via an electronic form –15.40
How long did you have to wait for a consultation
Reduced by 1 hour 0.22
Reputation of the GPc (2 stars)
5 stars 13.65
Collecting antibiotics (taking a paper prescription to a pharmacy located in the same building as the local medical center)
Prescription emailed to a pharmacy in another building as the local medical center –11.38
Form of consultation (at local medical centers)
Via the internet (–10.83) –17.09
Park et al [70]
Service platform (the internet)
Mobile phone 22.72
Service providers (small- and medium-sized hospitals and clinics)
Large general hospitals 21.64
Service scope (glucose management only)
Comprehensive diabetes care 24.23
Personalization of consultation (absent)
Present 11.87
24-hour service accessibility (absent)
Present 10.27
Reply time (within 3 days)
Within 1 day 8.45
Assurance of service (low assurance)
High assurance 18.61
System failure (system down 1%-5%)
System down <1% 12.68
Confidentiality (1%-5% confidentiality breaches)
<1% confidentiality breaches 8.78
Snoswell et al [71]
Method of screening (by a GP)
Mobile teledermoscopy 0.88
Time away from usual activities (>4 hours)
3-4 hours 6.11
1-2 hours 53.75
Chances of detecting a melanoma if one is present (65%–75%)
85%-95% 54.37
≥95% 87.73
Wait time for results (3 days)
<4 hours 4.92
Person reviewing the results (GP)
Dermatologist 32.21
Number of moles removed to find 1 melanoma (5)
3 31.51
Snoswell et al [36]
Type and mode of consultation (local in-person consultation with a generalist physician at a GP clinic or small hospital)
In-person consultation with a specialist physician at a large metropolitan hospital 9.88
Videoconference with a specialist physician from a local GP clinic or small hospital 91.33
Videoconference with a specialist from home 33.53
Time away from home, office, or usual activities, including travel (half a day)
1 full day –11.80
≥2 full days –113.66
Perceived benefit from the consultation (limited)
Partial benefit 53.86
Benefit 111.28
Consulted or not (attending a consultation)
No consultation chosen –175.14
Spinks et al [72]
WTP for teledermoscopy service, in addition to skin self-examination, GP screening, and clinic skin cancer screening 84.38
van der Pol and McKenzie [73]
Type of clinic
Telemedicine 773.31
Face-to-face 873.45
Driving time (up to 30 minutes)
30-60 minutes –57.49
60-90 minutes –74.18
2-4 hours –155.77
Wait time
Each additional week –27.82
Discrete choice experiment studies that reported WTP as a monthly payment: WTP per month (n=3)
Ahn et al [74]
Device type (smartphone)
Smart home 138.29
Wearable device 632.49
Service type (management of oxygen saturation level)
Blood glucose 30.27
Blood pressure –56.35
Service tailoring (absent)
Present 82.76
Reply time (usual)
1-hour reduction 3.57
Chang et al [75]
Per household 5.40d
Deal et al [76]
Speed of adding new information to the system (2 weeks)
1 week 5.70
48 hours 7.60
Overnight 2.85
1 hour 0
Individual patient tracker values displayed (most recent values only)
2 most recent 8.55
12-month history 13.31
5-year history 8.55
Complete history –5.70
Nurse coordinator tasks or duties (no nurse coordinator)
Basic dutiese 16.16
Basic duties and input data 20.91
Basic duties and information sessions 17.11
Basic duties, phone, and email 33.27
Basic duties and reminders 19.96
Frequency of contacting nurse coordinator (no contact)
1 day per month 6.65
2 days per month 10.45
1 day per week 5.70
2 days per week 10.91
5 days per week 1.90
Number of visits to a physician per year (1)
2 19.01
3 25.66
4 27.56
6 7.60

aWTP: willingness to pay.

bPPP: purchasing power parity.

cGP: general practitioner.

d95% CI 3.79-7.02.

eBasic duties of the nurse coordinator: assist the physician in using the tracker, keep tracker information updated, and ensure action is taken to address uncontrolled cardiovascular disease risks.

 WTP for eHealth: Meta-analysis

Approximately 60% (21/35) of studies reported sufficient data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Among the 21 studies, 16 (76%) reported that WTP was measured as a 1-time payment, whereas 5 (24%) reported that it was measured as monthly payments. Table 5 presents the mean WTP for eHealth obtained through the meta-analysis.

Overall WTPa for eHealth, WTP by the modality used to provide eHealth, and WTP by the region where the study was conducted (N=21).

Variables Studies, n (%) Sample size WTP (PPPb, 2021 US dollars), mean (95% CI) I2 (%) Egger test GRADEc quality of evidence
z score P value
Studies that measured WTP as a 1-time payment (n=16) [50-62]
Overall WTP 16 (76) 2102 25.00 (12.79-48.87) 99.69 0.72 .47 Low
Modality used to provide eHealth
Websites 1 (5) 34 111.46 (84.55-146.92) N/Ad N/A N/A Very low
Medical devices 3 (14) 278 48.34 (30.17-77.44) 97.86 0.10 .92 Low
Health apps 2 (10) 136 35.86 (28.05-45.85) N/A N/A N/A Low
Asynchronous communication (eg, SMS text messages and email) 6 (28) 1313 7.76 (2.39-25.21) 99.55 1.67 .10 Low
Synchronous communication (eg, telephone and video call) 4 (19) 341 52.59 (22.15-124.90) 99.23 0.74 .46 Very low
Region
North America 6 (28) 447 61.92 (33.94-112.97) 99.01 3.30 .001 Low
Europe 6 (28) 432 22.65 (12.05-42.60) 98.16 0.24 .81 Moderate
Asia 3 (14) 834 9.93 (0.84-117.06) 99.76 1.3 .19 Low
Africa 1 (5) 389 2.81 (2.45-3.22) N/A N/A N/A Low
Studies that measured WTP as monthly payments: WTP per month (n=5) [34,63,65,66]
Overall WTP 5 (24) 2284 18.53 (11.81-29.08) 94.71 0.24 .81 Moderate
Modality used to provide eHealth
Websites 1 (5) 135 13.41 (11.19-16.08) N/A N/A N/A Moderate
Health apps 3 (14) 2098 28.89 (21.71-38.44) 44.49 −1.73 .08 Moderate
Asynchronous communication 1 (5) 51 10.62 (8.89-12.68) N/A N/A N/A Low
Region
North America 1 (5) 51 10.62 (8.89-12.68) N/A N/A N/A Low
Europe 4 (19) 2233 21.81 (13.91-34.20) 91.27 −0.12 .91 Moderate

aWTP: willingness to pay.

bPPP: purchasing power parity.

cGRADE: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

dN/A: not applicable (as <3 experiments were analyzed).

Among the 16 studies that measured WTP as a 1-time payment, the mean WTP was US $25.00 (95% CI 12.79-48.87). The highest mean WTP was for eHealth provided through websites (US $114.46, 95% CI 84.55-146.92), followed by synchronous communication (US $52.59, 95% CI 22.15-124.90), medical devices (US $48.34, 95% CI 30.17-77.44), health apps (US $35.86, 95% CI 28.05-45.85), and asynchronous communication (US $7.76, 95% CI 2.39-25.21). In terms of region, the WTP value was the highest in North America (US $61.92, 95% CI 33.94-112.97), followed by Europe (US $22.65, 95% CI 12.05-42.60), Asia (US $9.93, 95% CI 0.84-117.06), and Africa (US $2.81, 95% CI 2.45-3.22).

Among the 5 studies that measured WTP as monthly payments, the mean WTP was US $18.53 (95% CI 11.81-29.08) per month. The highest mean WTP per month was for eHealth provided through health apps (US $28.89, 95% CI 21.71-38.44), followed by websites (US $13.41, 95% CI 11.19-16.08), and asynchronous communication (US $10.62, 95% CI 8.89-12.68). In terms of region, the mean WTP per month was US $21.81 (95% CI 13.91-34.20) in Europe and US $10.62 (95% CI 8.89-12.68) in North America.

 Factors Affecting WTP for eHealth: Meta-regression and Narrative Synthesis

Table 6 presents the results of the univariate log-linear meta-regression analyses of WTP-related factors for eHealth. The results showed that higher percentages of women (β=−.76; P<.001) were associated with a lower mean WTP value for eHealth, and more people with a college education (β=.63; P<.001) were associated with a higher mean WTP value for eHealth. No significant evidence was found to support the association between age and WTP for eHealth (P=.57). A higher GDP per capita was found to be related to a higher WTP value for eHealth (β=.03; P<.001). Compared with eHealth provided through websites, the respondents had a lower WTP value for asynchronous communication (β=−1.43; P<.001) and a higher WTP value for medical devices (β=.66; P<.001) and synchronous communication (β=.58; P<.001). Studies eliciting WTP values using the single-bounded dichotomous choice format (β=2.13; P<.001), double-bounded dichotomous choice format (β=2.20; P<.001), payment scale format (β=1.11; P<.001), and unspecified formats (β=1.89; P<.001) had higher mean WTP values than those using open-ended formats. Ex post evaluations had lower WTP values (β=−.37; P<.001) than ex ante evaluations. However, there was no significant difference in WTP between studies that excluded protest zero responses or all zero responses and studies that included all zero responses in their analysis (P=.37).

Among the studies included in this review, 40% (14/35) examined WTP-related factors for eHealth, and their findings were narratively synthesized (Tables 7 and 8). The factors of interest included the characteristics of the eHealth technology or service and the study participants’ sociodemographic characteristics, health conditions, current health care services, psychosocial characteristics, familiarity with information technology, and attitudes.

Univariate log-linear meta-regression analyses of WTPa-related factors for eHealth.

Explanatory variable Outcome variable (mean WTP)
β (SE, 95% CI) P value
Gender (women; %) −.76 (0.14, −1.03 to −0.49) <.001
Age (years) .002 (0.003, −0.004 to 0.01) .57
Education (completed college; %) .63 (0.18, 0.29 to 0.98) <.001
GDPb per capita (US $) .03 (0.001, 0.025 to 0.027) <.001
Modality used to provide eHealth
Websites —c —
Medical devices .66 (0.08, 0.49 to 0.82) <.001
Health apps .25 (0.1, 0.06 to 0.44) .01
Asynchronous communication (eg, SMS text messages and email) −1.43 (0.09, −1.60 to −1.27) <.001
Synchronous communication (eg, telephone and video call) .58 (0.08, 0.42 to 0.74) <.001
WTP question format
Open-ended — —
Single-bounded dichotomous choice 2.13 (0.12, 1.90 to 2.36) <.001
Double-bounded dichotomous choice 2.20 (0.06, 2.09 to 2.31) <.001
Payment scale 1.11 (0.05, 1.01 to 1.21) <.001
Not reported 1.89 (0.05, 1.80 to 1.98) <.001
Ex post vs ex ante −.37 (0.04, −0.45 to −0.28) <.001
Protest zero or all zero responses excluded vs all zeros included .02 (0.02, −0.02 to 0.05) .37

aWTP: willingness to pay.

bGDP: gross domestic product.

cNot available because it was the reference level.

WTPa-related factors for the examined eHealth in studies that reported WTP as a one-time payment.

Factors Adedokun et al [50] Bergmo and Wangberg [52] Kaga et al [55] Ngan et al [56] Raghu et al (1) [57] Raghu et al (2) [57] Shariful Islam et al [61] Stahl et al [62]
Characteristics of the eHealth or eHealth technology
Favorable features —b — — — — — — Positivec
Technical quality — — — — — — — Not significant
Service convenience — — — — Positive Positive — —
Satisfaction with the service — — — — Not significant Not significant — —
Brand reputation — — — — Positive Positive — —
Sociodemographic characteristics
Gender (women) Not significant Not significant Negative — — — Negative Not significant
Age Not significant Positive Not significant Positive — — — Not significant
Education Not significant Not significant — Not significant Not significant Negative Positive —
Income — Not significant Not significant Positive Not significant Positive Positive —
Employment Not significant — — — Not significant Not significant — —
Occupation Not significant — — Not significant — — — —
Living alone — — Not significant — — — — —
Residential area — — — Not significant — — — —
International student — — — — Negative Not significant — —
Health conditions
Chronic conditions — Not significant — — — — Not significant —
Smoking status — — — Not significant — — — —
Attempts to quit smoking — — — Not significant — — — —
Current health care services
Number of visits to a physician — — — — — — Not significant —
Time taken and cost of travel to see a physician — — — — — — — Not significant
Psychosocial characteristics
Health anxiety — — Not significant — — — — —
Health consciousness — — Positive — — — — —
Having an acquaintance who lives alone — — Not significant — — — — —
Not having seen people for over a week — — Positive — — — — —
Experience with information technology
Having used eHealth — Negative — — — — — —
Internet use — Not significant — — — — — —
Attitudes
Willingness to use — — Positive — — — — —

aWTP: willingness to pay.

bThe factor was not examined in the study.

cThe favorable feature examined in the study was to involve family and friends.

WTPa-related factors for the examined eHealth in studies that reported WTP in monthly payment.

Factors Cocosila et al [63] Jacobs et al [65] Rasche et al [66] Somers et al (1) [34] Somers et al (2) [34] Tran et al [67]
Characteristics of the eHealth or eHealth technology
Favorable features —b — Positivec — — Positived
Sociodemographic characteristics
Gender (women) Not significant — Not significant Not significant Negative —
Age Negative — Not significant Negative Negative —
Education — — Not significant — — Positive
Income — — — Positive Not significant —
Health literacy — — Not significant — — —
Health conditions
Perceived health status — — — Positive Positive —
Chronic conditions — — Not significant Not significant Not significant —
Health risk — — Not significant — — —
Taking regular medication — — — Not significant Not significant Not significant
Dosage of medication — Positive — — — —
Current health care services
Level of the health system — — — — — Negative
Psychosocial characteristics
Perceived autonomy support — Positive — — — —
Experience with information technology
Having used eHealth — — — — — —
Internet use — — — Positive and negativee Not significant —
SMS text messaging use Not significant — — — — —
Computer use — — — Negativef Not significant —
Smartphone use — — — Not significant Not significant —
Times without a mobile phone — — — — — Positive
Mobile app use — — — Not significant Not significant —
Amount spent on the phone, the internet, and additional features — — — Positive Positive Positive
Amount spent on health apps — — — Positive Positive —
Attitudes
Attitude toward intervention — — Not significant — — —
Ready for technology innovation — — Not significant — — —
Willingness to use — — — — — Positive

aWTP: willingness to pay.

bThe factor was not examined in the study.

cFavorable features examined in the study included decisions regarding treatment, description of physical exercise to reduce the risk of falls, continuous workout programs, and making new social contacts.

dFavorable features examined in the study included direct counseling with physicians and booking check-ups.

eIndividuals who had access to the internet at home but never used it showed higher WTP than those who did not have internet access at home; individuals who had access to the internet at home and used it regularly showed lower WTP than those who did not have internet access at home.

fIndividuals who owned a computer but rarely used it showed a lower WTP than those who did not own a computer.

 Discussion Principal Findings

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of WTP for eHealth and meta-regression analysis of WTP-related factors for eHealth. We summarized and analyzed the findings of relevant scientific papers and found that the WTP value reported in each study varied significantly depending on the study population, modality used to provide eHealth, and methods used to measure WTP.

WTP for eHealth was higher in North America and Europe than in Asia and Africa, which is in line with the positive association between GDP per capita and WTP found in our meta-regression analysis. These findings suggest that even after adjusting for PPP, the overall economic condition of a country is related to people’s WTP for eHealth. Furthermore, several studies have shown that individual or household income was positively associated with WTP for eHealth in their samples, suggesting that the economic condition of an individual also predicts their WTP for eHealth. A commonly cited reason for this finding is that economic conditions affect individuals’ ability to pay, which in turn affects their WTP [77]. Another reason may be that individuals with a higher income or those in more economically developed countries have better access to and are more familiar with eHealth and have a higher intention to use and pay for it [78].

The demographic characteristics related to WTP for eHealth were gender, age, and educational level. The meta-regression analysis showed that women were associated with lower WTP values, which is in line with the findings of some studies in which women were willing to pay less than men for eHealth [34,55,61]. A possible reason for this may be that men tend to be more concerned about their health because of the higher risks of life-threatening chronic diseases than women and are more willing to pay for tools to help manage their health conditions [79,80]. Another reason may be that men tend to have a more favorable attitude toward technology than women [81] and may be more likely to accept and favor eHealth. Regarding the association between age and WTP for eHealth, there were mixed results (ie, nonsignificant, significantly positive, and significantly negative associations) among the included studies. This suggests that the association may vary drastically, depending on the context of each study (eg, population, examined eHealth, clinical setting, and alternative health services). Educational level was also related to WTP for eHealth; studies with a higher percentage of college graduates reported higher WTP values than those with a lower percentage of college graduates. This could be explained by the fact that people with higher education levels had higher eHealth literacy levels [82], perceived fewer barriers to using eHealth, and were more willing to pay for eHealth.

People were more willing to pay for eHealth provided through a specific medical device (eg, dermatoscope, nonmydriatic fundus camera, or vital sign measurement system) than for eHealth provided through websites, probably because of the advantage of obtaining accurate measurements for better clinical diagnoses. The results also showed that people were more willing to pay for eHealth provided through synchronous communication (eg, telephone calls and videoconferencing) than for health-related websites that allow for little to no interaction between users and health care providers, probably because synchronous communication enables real-time communication between users and their health care providers. Asynchronous eHealth also enables communication with health care providers through store-and-forward methods, such as SMS text messaging or email. However, the mean WTP for asynchronous eHealth was much lower than that for synchronous eHealth, probably because the timeliness of communication cannot be guaranteed through asynchronous eHealth, and the amount of health information delivered through SMS text messages or emails is limited.

The methods used to measure WTP also influenced the WTP values. Our meta-regression analysis showed that posing open-ended questions to participants resulted in lower WTP values than any other contingent valuation method. The reason may be that open-ended questions yield more 0 responses [83,84]; alternatively, answering “yes” and anchoring effects can occur when the dichotomous choice or payment scale approach is used [85]. The meta-regression analysis also revealed that ex post evaluations led to lower WTP values than ex ante evaluations, probably because individuals who had not used eHealth tended to have higher expectations and value it more. Another explanation may be that some eHealth interventions were less user-friendly [52] or failed to meet user needs in practice [86].

 Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Research

The results of this review reflect the value of eHealth from the perspective of users, who are important sources of practical implications for the development and implementation of eHealth [87,88]. Our results showed that users place a high value on an eHealth technology that offers accurate diagnoses of health problems, has interactive features, and facilitates real-time communication with health professionals [89-91]. They also favor eHealth technology that enables shared decision-making, physical exercise training, socializing, and booking health examinations [62,66,67,92,93]. In addition, users find convenient and easy-to-use eHealth to be more attractive, suggesting that usability and technology acceptance should be taken into consideration when designing and implementing technology for eHealth, which is consistent with the literature [86,94-103].

Our results revealed the gender, education, and economic differences in the WTP for eHealth. Despite that eHealth has great potential to improve the accessibility of care by delivering health care and health information remotely and at a low cost; it might be more accessible to and create more benefits for individuals or populations that have more resources to use and are more capable of using eHealth [104]. It is a challenge for researchers, eHealth developers, and public health decision-makers to ensure that eHealth helps resolve health disparities instead of exacerbating them. We recommend identifying and removing barriers to eHealth access among disadvantaged populations [105] and keeping users’ needs and eHealth literacy levels in mind when developing eHealth interventions [106].

Our review showed that the most common approach to elicit WTP for eHealth was open-ended questions, as researchers do not have to provide cues for a reasonable WTP value, and it is easy to use. However, many participants may have never been asked these types of questions in real life and may have found it difficult to answer, leading to a low response rate and more zero responses, especially “protest zeros” [83,84]. In comparison, other formats that gave participants a starting value to consider, such as single- and double-bounded dichotomous choice models, payment scales, and bidding games, may have made it easier for them to answer the questions but could have led to anchoring bias by making the participants believe that the starting value was an appropriate value, which could have biased their responses toward that value [85]. Some studies used discrete choice experiments, in which each attribute of the good or service was valued separately instead of the full package. Discrete choice experiments generally have higher internal and external validity but require more time and effort for study design and data collection than contingent valuation studies [107]. The perfect approach for WTP evaluation remains debatable, and it seems that the approaches cannot substitute each other, which underscores the need to undertake further methodological comparisons between different approaches and explore other approaches to elicit WTP.

 Limitations

This study had some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, all the studies identified in this review were stated preference studies that used hypothetical questions to measure WTP values instead of observing actual purchases or choices made by the respondents (ie, revealed preferences). This inevitably led to a hypothetical bias, with participants reporting higher WTP values than what they would pay in real life [108-111]. The dearth of revealed preference studies in this field calls for further investigation into how much people are willing to pay for eHealth in real life and a comparison of WTP values elicited through stated preference and revealed preference methods. Second, articles written in languages other than English were excluded from this review, which may have led to language and publication bias. Third, there was great heterogeneity in the meta-analysis results, which limited the generalizability of the reported mean WTP values. Meta-analysis and meta-regression results should be interpreted with caution. Finally, we conducted a univariate meta-regression analysis as the rule of thumb is that the number of studies to be used in an analysis should be at least 10 times the number of explanatory variables in the regression [37]. Hence, this review did not use multivariate regression to control for all potential confounders and covariates when examining the associations between exploratory variables and WTP for eHealth.

 Conclusions

We found that WTP for eHealth varies greatly depending on the modality used to provide eHealth, study population, and methods used to measure WTP. We found that consumers favored and valued several eHealth modalities and features, which should be considered for adoption in future eHealth interventions. User-centered, convenient, and easy-to-use eHealth interventions should be developed, keeping in mind their usability and acceptance. Our results also showed that different population segments have significantly different WTP values for eHealth, which calls for further efforts to ensure the effective implementation of eHealth among disadvantaged populations and resolve health disparities. Thus far, there has been no consensus on the optimal approach to elicit WTP values, necessitating the exploration of other methods.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.

Critical appraisal of the methodological quality.

 Abbreviations GDP

gross domestic product

 GRADE

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation

 PPP

purchasing power parity

 PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

 WTP

willingness to pay

None declared.

 Boogerd EA Arts T Engelen LJ van de Belt TH "What is eHealth": time for an update? JMIR Res Protoc 2015 03 12 4 1 e29 10.2196/resprot.4065 25768939 v4i1e29 PMC4376129 Or C Pre-implementation case studies evaluating workflow and informatics challenges in private primary care clinics for electronic medical record implementation Int J Healthc Inf Syst Inform 2015 10 4 56 64 10.4018/ijhisi.2015100104 Or C Tong E Tan J Chan S Exploring factors affecting voluntary adoption of electronic medical records among physicians and clinical assistants of small or solo private general practice clinics J Med Syst 2018 05 29 42 7 121 10.1007/s10916-018-0971-0 29845400 10.1007/s10916-018-0971-0 Xie Z Nacioglu A Or C Prevalence, demographic correlates, and perceived impacts of mobile health app use amongst Chinese adults: cross-sectional survey study JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 04 26 6 4 e103 10.2196/mhealth.9002 29699971 v6i4e103 PMC5945985 Or CK Karsh BT A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009 16 4 550 60 10.1197/jamia.M2888 19390112 M2888 PMC2705259 Eysenbach G What is e-health? J Med Internet Res 2001 3 2 E20 10.2196/jmir.3.2.e20 11720962 PMC1761894 Or CK Holden RJ Valdez R Duffy VG Ziefle M Rau PL Tseng MM Human factors engineering and user-centered design for mobile health technology: enhancing effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction Human-Automation Interaction: Mobile Computing 2022 New York, NY, USA Springer International Publishing Slattery BW Haugh S O'Connor L Francis K Dwyer CP O'Higgins S Egan J McGuire BE An evaluation of the effectiveness of the modalities used to deliver electronic health interventions for chronic pain: systematic review with network meta-analysis J Med Internet Res 2019 07 17 21 7 e11086 10.2196/11086 31317869 v21i7e11086 PMC6668295 Slattery BW Haugh S Francis K O'Connor L Barrett K Dwyer CP O'Higgins S Egan J McGuire BE Protocol for a systematic review with network meta-analysis of the modalities used to deliver eHealth interventions for chronic pain Syst Rev 2017 03 03 6 1 45 10.1186/s13643-017-0414-x 28253909 10.1186/s13643-017-0414-x PMC5335823 Chen J Xie Z Or C Effectiveness of immersive virtual reality-supported interventions for patients with disorders or impairments: a systematic review and meta-analysis Health Technol 2021 07 16 11 4 811 33 10.1007/s12553-021-00561-7 Verhoeven F van Gemert-Pijnen L Dijkstra K Nijland N Seydel E Steehouder M The contribution of teleconsultation and videoconferencing to diabetes care: a systematic literature review J Med Internet Res 2007 12 14 9 5 e37 10.2196/jmir.9.5.e37 18093904 v9i5e37 PMC2270420 O'Cathail M Sivanandan MA Diver C Patel P Christian J The use of patient-facing teleconsultations in the national health service: scoping review JMIR Med Inform 2020 03 16 8 3 e15380 10.2196/15380 32175911 v8i3e15380 PMC7105931 de Farias FA Dagostini CM de Assunção Bicca Y Falavigna VF Falavigna A Remote patient monitoring: a systematic review Telemed J E Health 2020 05 26 5 576 83 10.1089/tmj.2019.0066 31314689 Kelly M Fullen B Martin D McMahon S McVeigh JG eHealth interventions to support self-management in people with musculoskeletal disorders, "eHealth: it's TIME"-a scoping review Phys Ther 2022 04 01 102 4 pzab307 10.1093/ptj/pzab307 35079826 6506314 PMC8994513 Liu K Xie Z Or CK Effectiveness of mobile app-assisted self-care interventions for improving patient outcomes in type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020 08 04 8 8 e15779 10.2196/15779 32459654 v8i8e15779 PMC7435643 Or CK Tao D Does the use of consumer health information technology improve outcomes in the patient self-management of diabetes? A meta-analysis and narrative review of randomized controlled trials Int J Med Inform 2014 05 83 5 320 9 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.009 24534118 S1386-5056(14)00022-7 Chen J Or CK Chen T Effectiveness of using virtual reality-supported exercise therapy for upper extremity motor rehabilitation in patients with stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials J Med Internet Res 2022 06 20 24 6 e24111 10.2196/24111 35723907 v24i6e24111 PMC9253973 Widmer RJ Collins NM Collins CS West CP Lerman LO Lerman A Digital health interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis Mayo Clin Proc 2015 04 90 4 469 80 10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.12.026 25841251 S0025-6196(15)00073-7 PMC4551455 Elbert NJ van Os-Medendorp H van Renselaar W Ekeland AG Hakkaart-van Roijen L Raat H Nijsten TE Pasmans SG Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ehealth interventions in somatic diseases: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses J Med Internet Res 2014 04 16 16 4 e110 10.2196/jmir.2790 24739471 v16i4e110 PMC4019777 Kampmeijer R Pavlova M Tambor M Golinowska S Groot W The use of e-health and m-health tools in health promotion and primary prevention among older adults: a systematic literature review BMC Health Serv Res 2016 09 05 16 Suppl 5 290 10.1186/s12913-016-1522-3 27608677 10.1186/s12913-016-1522-3 PMC5016733 Or C Tao D A 3-month randomized controlled pilot trial of a patient-centered, computer-based self-monitoring system for the care of type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension J Med Syst 2016 04 40 4 81 10.1007/s10916-016-0437-1 26802011 10.1007/s10916-016-0437-1 Or CK Liu K So MK Cheung B Yam LY Tiwari A Lau YF Lau T Hui PS Cheng HC Tan J Cheung MT Improving self-care in patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes and hypertension by technological surrogate nursing: randomized controlled trial J Med Internet Res 2020 03 27 22 3 e16769 10.2196/16769 32217498 v22i3e16769 PMC7148548 Sülz S van Elten HJ Askari M Weggelaar-Jansen AM Huijsman R eHealth applications to support independent living of older persons: scoping review of costs and benefits identified in economic evaluations J Med Internet Res 2021 03 09 23 3 e24363 10.2196/24363 33687335 v23i3e24363 PMC7988395 Bergmo TS How to measure costs and benefits of eHealth interventions: an overview of methods and frameworks J Med Internet Res 2015 11 09 17 11 e254 10.2196/jmir.4521 26552360 v17i11e254 PMC4642791 Fanta G Pretorius L Erasmus L Economic analysis of sustainable eHealth implementation in developing countries: a systematic review Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International Conference on Management of Technology 2018 IAMOT '18 April 22-26, 2018 Birmingham, UK Olsen JA Smith RD Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care Health Econ 2001 01 10 1 39 52 10.1002/1099-1050(200101)10:1<39::aid-hec563>3.0.co;2-e 11180568 10.1002/1099-1050(200101)10:1<39::AID-HEC563>3.0.CO;2-E Robinson R Cost-benefit analysis BMJ 1993 10 09 307 6909 924 6 10.1136/bmj.307.6909.924 8241859 PMC1679054 Soekhai V de Bekker-Grob EW Ellis AR Vass CM Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future Pharmacoeconomics 2019 02 37 2 201 26 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2 30392040 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2 PMC6386055 Nosratnejad S Rashidian A Dror DM Systematic review of willingness to pay for health insurance in low and middle income countries PLoS One 2016 6 30 11 6 e0157470 10.1371/journal.pone.0157470 27362356 PONE-D-15-49670 PMC4928775 Sunstein CR Willingness to pay versus welfare Harv Law Rev 2007 1 303 Borghi J Aggregation rules for cost-benefit analysis: a health economics perspective Health Econ 2008 07 17 7 863 75 10.1002/hec.1304 17992709 de Bekker-Grob EW Ryan M Gerard K Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature Health Econ 2012 02 21 2 145 72 10.1002/hec.1697 22223558 Ryan M Scott DA Reeves C Bate A van Teijlingen ER Russell EM Napper M Robb CM Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques Health Technol Assess 2001 5 5 1 186 10.3310/hta5050 11262422 Somers C Grieve E Lennon M Bouamrane MM Mair FS McIntosh E Valuing mobile health: an open-ended contingent valuation survey of a national digital health program JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019 01 17 7 1 e3 10.2196/mhealth.9990 30664488 v7i1e3 PMC6354197 Buchanan J Roope LS Morrell L Pouwels KB Robotham JV Abel L Crook DW Peto T Butler CC Walker AS Wordsworth S Preferences for medical consultations from online providers: evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the United Kingdom Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2021 07 19 4 521 35 10.1007/s40258-021-00642-8 33682065 10.1007/s40258-021-00642-8 PMC7937442 Snoswell CL Smith AC Page M Caffery LJ Patient preferences for specialist outpatient video consultations: a discrete choice experiment J Telemed Telecare (forthcoming) 2021 06 18 1357633X211022898 10.1177/1357633X211022898 34142895 Higgins JP Thomas J Chandler J Cumpston M Li T Page MJ Welch MJ Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.1 2020 London, UK The Cochrane Collaboration Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J Altman DG PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement Ann Intern Med 2009 08 18 151 4 264 W64 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 19622511 0000605-200908180-00135 Hoy D Brooks P Woolf A Blyth F March L Bain C Baker P Smith E Buchbinder R Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement J Clin Epidemiol 2012 09 65 9 934 9 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014 22742910 S0895-4356(12)00079-0 Smith RD Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment Health Econ 2003 08 12 8 609 28 10.1002/hec.755 12898660 World Economic Outlook Database: 2021 International Monetary Fund 2021 2022-09-05 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/October Van Houtven G Methods for the meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay data: an overview Pharmacoeconomics 2008 26 11 901 10 10.2165/00019053-200826110-00003 18850760 26113 Higgins JP White IR Anzures-Cabrera J Meta-analysis of skewed data: combining results reported on log-transformed or raw scales Stat Med 2008 12 20 27 29 6072 92 10.1002/sim.3427 18800342 PMC2978323 Wan X Wang W Liu J Tong T Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range BMC Med Res Methodol 2014 12 19 14 135 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135 25524443 1471-2288-14-135 PMC4383202 Higgins JP Thompson SG Deeks JJ Altman DG Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses BMJ 2003 09 06 327 7414 557 60 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 12958120 327/7414/557 PMC192859 Egger M Davey Smith G Schneider M Minder C Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test BMJ 1997 09 13 315 7109 629 34 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 9310563 PMC2127453 Guyatt G Oxman AD Akl EA Kunz R Vist G Brozek J Norris S Falck-Ytter Y Glasziou P DeBeer H Jaeschke R Rind D Meerpohl J Dahm P Schünemann HJ GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables J Clin Epidemiol 2011 04 64 4 383 94 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 21195583 S0895-4356(10)00330-6 Zhang Y Alonso-Coello P Guyatt GH Yepes-Nuñez JJ Akl EA Hazlewood G Pardo-Hernandez H Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I Qaseem A Williams Jr JW Tugwell P Flottorp S Chang Y Zhang Y Mustafa RA Rojas MX Schünemann HJ GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-Risk of bias and indirectness J Clin Epidemiol 2019 07 111 94 104 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.013 29452223 S0895-4356(17)31036-3 Zhang Y Coello PA Guyatt GH Yepes-Nuñez JJ Akl EA Hazlewood G Pardo-Hernandez H Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I Qaseem A Williams Jr JW Tugwell P Flottorp S Chang Y Zhang Y Mustafa RA Rojas MX Xie F Schünemann HJ GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains J Clin Epidemiol 2019 07 111 83 93 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.011 29800687 S0895-4356(17)31061-2 Adedokun A Idris O Odujoko T Patients' willingness to utilize a SMS-based appointment scheduling system at a family practice unit in a developing country Prim Health Care Res Dev 2016 03 17 2 149 56 10.1017/S1463423615000213 25851031 S1463423615000213 Belkora J Stupar L O'Donnell S Loucks A Moore D Jupiter C Johnson N Wilson L Decision support by telephone: randomized controlled trial in a rural community setting Patient Educ Couns 2012 10 89 1 134 42 10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.009 22776761 S0738-3991(12)00239-X Bergmo TS Wangberg SC Patients' willingness to pay for electronic communication with their general practitioner Eur J Health Econ 2007 06 8 2 105 10 10.1007/s10198-006-0014-5 17186205 Brandling-Bennett HA Kedar I Pallin DJ Jacques G Gumley GJ Kvedar JC Delivering health care in rural Cambodia via store-and-forward telemedicine: a pilot study Telemed J E Health 2005 02 11 1 56 62 10.1089/tmj.2005.11.56 15785221 Fawsitt CG Meaney S Greene RA Corcoran P Surgical site infection after caesarean section? There is an app for that: results from a feasibility study on costs and benefits Ir Med J 2017 09 18 110 9 635 29372950 Kaga S Suzuki T Ogasawara K Willingness to pay for elderly telecare service using the Internet and digital terrestrial broadcasting Interact J Med Res 2017 10 24 6 2 e21 10.2196/ijmr.7461 29066428 v6i2e21 PMC5676029 Ngan TT Do VV Huang J Redmon PB Minh HV Willingness to use and pay for smoking cessation service via text-messaging among Vietnamese adult smokers, 2017 J Subst Abuse Treat 2019 09 104 1 6 10.1016/j.jsat.2019.05.014 31370973 S0740-5472(18)30506-3 Raghu TS Yiannias J Sharma N Markus AL Willingness to pay for teledermoscopy services at a university health center J Patient Exp 2018 09 5 3 212 8 10.1177/2374373517748657 30214928 10.1177_2374373517748657 PMC6134546 Ramchandran RS Yilmaz S Greaux E Dozier A Patient perceived value of teleophthalmology in an urban, low income US population with diabetes PLoS One 2020 1 9 15 1 e0225300 10.1371/journal.pone.0225300 31917793 PONE-D-19-01052 PMC6952085 Rochat L Genton B Telemedicine for health issues while abroad: interest and willingness to pay among travellers prior to departure J Travel Med 2018 01 01 25 1 tay028 10.1093/jtm/tay028 29718404 4989867 Ruby A Marko-Holguin M Fogel J Van Voorhees BW Economic analysis of an Internet-based depression prevention intervention J Ment Health Policy Econ 2013 09 16 3 121 30 24327482 PMC6205755 Shariful Islam SM Lechner A Ferrari U Seissler J Holle R Niessen LW Mobile phone use and willingness to pay for SMS for diabetes in Bangladesh J Public Health (Oxf) 2016 03 38 1 163 9 10.1093/pubmed/fdv009 25687131 fdv009 Stahl JE Dixon RF Acceptability and willingness to pay for primary care videoconferencing: a randomized controlled trial J Telemed Telecare 2010 16 3 147 51 10.1258/jtt.2009.090502 20386035 16/3/147 Cocosila M Archer N Yuan Y Would people pay for text messaging health reminders? Telemed J E Health 2008 12 14 10 1091 5 10.1089/tmj.2008.0047 19119832 Contreras-Somoza LM Irazoki E Castilla D Botella C Toribio-Guzmán JM Parra-Vidales E Suso-Ribera C Suárez-López P Perea-Bartolomé MV Franco-Martín MÁ Study on the acceptability of an ICT platform for older adults with mild cognitive impairment J Med Syst 2020 05 25 44 7 120 10.1007/s10916-020-01566-x 32451740 10.1007/s10916-020-01566-x Jacobs N Drost R Ament A Evers S Claes N Willingness to pay for a cardiovascular prevention program in highly educated adults: a randomized controlled trial Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011 10 27 4 283 9 10.1017/S0266462311000341 22004768 S0266462311000341 Rasche P Mertens A Brandl C Liu S Buecking B Bliemel C Horst K Weber CD Lichte P Knobe M Satisfying product features of a fall prevention smartphone app and potential users' willingness to pay: Web-based survey among older adults JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 03 27 6 3 e75 10.2196/mhealth.9467 29588268 v6i3e75 PMC5893889 Tran BX Houston S Mobile phone-based antiretroviral adherence support in Vietnam: feasibility, patient's preference, and willingness-to-pay AIDS Behav 2012 10 16 7 1988 92 10.1007/s10461-012-0271-5 22814571 Tsuji M Suzuki W Taoka F An empirical analysis of a telehealth system in terms of cost-sharing J Telemed Telecare 2003 9 Suppl 1 S41 3 10.1258/135763303322196303 12952719 Tsuji M Iizuka C Taoka F Teshima M The willingness of Japanese citizens to pay for e-Health systems J Inf Technol Healthc 2006 4 4 2 103 10 Park H Chon Y Lee J Choi IJ Yoon KH Service design attributes affecting diabetic patient preferences of telemedicine in South Korea Telemed J E Health 2011 17 6 442 51 10.1089/tmj.2010.0201 21631382 PMC3137874 Snoswell CL Whitty JA Caffery LJ Loescher LJ Gillespie N Janda M Direct-to-consumer mobile teledermoscopy for skin cancer screening: preliminary results demonstrating willingness-to-pay in Australia J Telemed Telecare 2018 12 24 10 683 9 10.1177/1357633X18799582 30343653 Spinks J Janda M Soyer HP Whitty JA Consumer preferences for teledermoscopy screening to detect melanoma early J Telemed Telecare 2016 01 22 1 39 46 10.1177/1357633X15586701 26026184 1357633X15586701 van der Pol M McKenzie L Costs and benefits of tele-endoscopy clinics in a remote location J Telemed Telecare 2010 16 2 89 94 10.1258/jtt.2009.090609 20139140 jtt.2009.090609 Ahn J Shin J Lee J Shin K Park H Consumer preferences for telemedicine devices and services in South Korea Telemed J E Health 2014 02 20 2 168 74 10.1089/tmj.2013.0101 24303932 Chang J Savage SJ Waldman DM Estimating willingness to pay for online health services with discrete-choice experiments Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2017 08 15 4 491 500 10.1007/s40258-017-0316-z 28290107 10.1007/s40258-017-0316-z Deal K Keshavjee K Troyan S Kyba R Holbrook AM Physician and patient willingness to pay for electronic cardiovascular disease management Int J Med Inform 2014 07 83 7 517 28 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.04.007 24862891 S1386-5056(14)00067-7 Donaldson C Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care: does 'ability to pay' preclude the use of 'willingness to pay'? Soc Sci Med 1999 08 49 4 551 63 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00173-2 10414814 S0277953699001732 Reiners F Sturm J Bouw LJ Wouters EJ Sociodemographic factors influencing the use of eHealth in people with chronic diseases Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019 02 21 16 4 645 10.3390/ijerph16040645 30795623 ijerph16040645 PMC6406337 Rieker PP Bird CE Rethinking gender differences in health: why we need to integrate social and biological perspectives J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2005 10 60 Spec No 2 40 7 10.1093/geronb/60.special_issue_2.s40 16251589 60/suppl_Special_Issue_2/S40 Chung WS Shin KO Bae JY Gender differences in body image misperception according to body mass index, physical activity, and health concern among Korean university students J Mens Health 2019 01 22 15 1 e1 9 10.22374/1875-6859.15.1.1 Cai Z Fan X Du J Gender and attitudes toward technology use: a meta-analysis Comput Educ 2017 02 105 1 13 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.003 Tennant B Stellefson M Dodd V Chaney B Chaney D Paige S Alber J eHealth literacy and Web 2.0 health information seeking behaviors among baby boomers and older adults J Med Internet Res 2015 03 17 17 3 e70 10.2196/jmir.3992 25783036 v17i3e70 PMC4381816 Donaldson C Thomas R Torgerson DJ Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay Appl Econ 1997 29 1 79 84 10.1080/000368497327425 Whynes DK Frew E Wolstenholme JL A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening J Health Econ 2003 07 22 4 555 74 10.1016/S0167-6296(03)00006-7 12842315 S0167-6296(03)00006-7 Frew EJ Whynes DK Wolstenholme JL Eliciting willingness to pay: comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats Med Decis Making 2003 23 2 150 9 10.1177/0272989X03251245 12693877 Granja C Janssen W Johansen MA Factors determining the success and failure of eHealth interventions: systematic review of the literature J Med Internet Res 2018 05 01 20 5 e10235 10.2196/10235 29716883 v20i5e10235 PMC5954232 Hensher M Cooper P Dona SW Angeles MR Nguyen D Heynsbergh N Chatterton ML Peeters A Scoping review: development and assessment of evaluation frameworks of mobile health apps for recommendations to consumers J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021 06 12 28 6 1318 29 10.1093/jamia/ocab041 33787894 6205942 PMC8263081 Martin-Payo R Carrasco-Santos S Cuesta M Stoyan S Gonzalez-Mendez X Fernandez-Alvarez MD Spanish adaptation and validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021 11 25 28 12 2681 6 10.1093/jamia/ocab216 34613400 6382263 PMC8633643 Runz-Jørgensen SM Schiøtz ML Christensen U Perceived value of eHealth among people living with multimorbidity: a qualitative study J Comorb 2017 8 24 7 1 96 111 10.15256/joc.2017.7.98 29359124 joc.2017.7.98 PMC5777537 Hersh WR Hickam DH Severance SM Dana TL Pyle Krages K Helfand M Diagnosis, access and outcomes: update of a systematic review of telemedicine services J Telemed Telecare 2006 12 Suppl 2 S3 31 10.1258/135763306778393117 16989671 Akesson KM Saveman BI Nilsson G Health care consumers' experiences of information communication technology--a summary of literature Int J Med Inform 2007 09 76 9 633 45 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.07.001 16931133 S1386-5056(06)00174-2 Chen T Or CK Development and pilot test of a machine learning-based knee exercise system with video demonstration, real-time feedback, and exercise performance score Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 2021 11 12 65 1 1519 23 10.1177/1071181321651109 Chan KL Leung WC Tiwari A Or KL Ip P Using smartphone-based psychoeducation to reduce postnatal depression among first-time mothers: randomized controlled trial JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019 05 14 7 5 e12794 10.2196/12794 31094354 v7i5e12794 PMC6537506 Dopp AR Parisi KE Munson SA Lyon AR Aligning implementation and user-centered design strategies to enhance the impact of health services: results from a concept mapping study Implement Sci Commun 2020 2 26 1 17 10.1186/s43058-020-00020-w 32885179 20 PMC7427975 Barello S Triberti S Graffigna G Libreri C Serino S Hibbard J Riva G eHealth for patient engagement: a systematic review Front Psychol 2016 1 8 6 2013 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02013 26779108 PMC4705444 Or C Tao D Usability study of a computer-based self-management system for older adults with chronic diseases JMIR Res Protoc 2012 11 08 1 2 e13 10.2196/resprot.2184 23612015 v1i2e13 PMC3626148 Karsh BT Holden RJ Or CK Carayon P Human factors and ergonomics of health information technology implementation Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care and Patient Safety. 2nd edition 2011 Boca Raton, FL, USA CRC Press 249 64 Liu K Or CK So M Cheung B Chan B Tiwari A Tan J A longitudinal examination of tablet self-management technology acceptance by patients with chronic diseases: integrating perceived hand function, perceived visual function, and perceived home space adequacy with the TAM and TPB Appl Ergon 2022 04 100 103667 10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103667 34920356 S0003-6870(21)00314-8 Or CK Valdez RS Casper GR Carayon P Burke LJ Brennan PF Karsh BT Human factors and ergonomics in home care: current concerns and future considerations for health information technology Work 2009 33 2 201 9 10.3233/WOR-2009-0867 19713630 J64614388R473752 PMC2819983 Xie Z Kalun Or C Acceptance of mHealth by elderly adults: a path analysis Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 2021 02 09 64 1 755 9 10.1177/1071181320641174 Yan M Or C Factors in the 4-week acceptance of a computer-based, chronic disease self-monitoring system in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension Telemed J E Health 2018 02 24 2 121 9 10.1089/tmj.2017.0064 28737995 K.L. C Karsh BT The patient technology acceptance model (PTAM) for homecare patients with chronic illness Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 2006 10 1 50 10 989 93 10.1177/154193120605001040 Scheibner J Sleigh J Ienca M Vayena E Benefits, challenges, and contributors to success for national eHealth systems implementation: a scoping review J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021 08 13 28 9 2039 49 10.1093/jamia/ocab096 34151990 6307182 PMC8363797 Viswanath K Kreuter MW Health disparities, communication inequalities, and eHealth Am J Prev Med 2007 05 32 5 Suppl S131 3 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.02.012 17466818 S0749-3797(07)00100-6 PMC2043145 Mangin D Parascandalo J Khudoyarova O Agarwal G Bismah V Orr S Multimorbidity, eHealth and implications for equity: a cross-sectional survey of patient perspectives on eHealth BMJ Open 2019 02 12 9 2 e023731 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023731 30760515 bmjopen-2018-023731 PMC6377536 Kayser L Kushniruk A Osborne RH Norgaard O Turner P Enhancing the effectiveness of consumer-focused health information technology systems through eHealth literacy: a framework for understanding users' needs JMIR Hum Factors 2015 05 20 2 1 e9 10.2196/humanfactors.3696 27025228 v2i1e9 PMC4797661 Breidert C Hahsler M Reutterer T A review of methods for measuring willingness-to-pay Innov Mark 2006 2 4 8 32 10.1007/978-3-8350-9244-0_4 Voelckner F An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay Market Lett 2006 4 17 2 137 49 10.1007/s11002-006-5147-x Botelho A Pinto LC Hypothetical, real, and predicted real willingness to pay in open-ended surveys: experimental results Appl Econ Lett 2002 12 9 15 993 6 10.1080/13504850210148143 Wertenbroch K Skiera B Measuring consumers' willingness to pay at the point of purchase J Mark Res 2002 5 1 39 2 228 41 10.1509/jmkr.39.2.228.19086 Kanya L Sanghera S Lewin A Fox-Rushby J The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence Soc Sci Med 2019 07 232 238 61 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.04.015 31108330 S0277-9536(19)30215-1