To be or not to be digital? A bibliometric analysis of adoption of eHealth services

Nicola Cobelli (Department of Management, University of Verona, Verona, Italy)
Emanuele Blasioli (DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada)

The TQM Journal

ISSN: 1754-2731

Article publication date: 12 July 2023

Issue publication date: 18 December 2023

1585

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to introduce new tools to develop a more precise and focused bibliometric analysis on the field of digitalization in healthcare management. Furthermore, this study aims to provide an overview of the existing resources in healthcare management and education and other developing interdisciplinary fields.

Design/methodology/approach

This work uses bibliometric analysis to conduct a comprehensive review to map the use of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2) research models in healthcare academic studies. Bibliometric studies are considered an important tool to evaluate research studies and to gain a comprehensive view of the state of the art.

Findings

Although UTAUT dates to 2003, our bibliometric analysis reveals that only since 2016 has the model, together with UTAUT2 (2012), had relevant application in the literature. Nonetheless, studies have shown that UTAUT and UTAUT2 are particularly suitable for understanding the reasons that underlie the adoption and non-adoption choices of eHealth services. Further, this study highlights the lack of a multidisciplinary approach in the implementation of eHealth services. Equally significant is the fact that many studies have focused on the acceptance and the adoption of eHealth services by end users, whereas very few have focused on the level of acceptance of healthcare professionals.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to conduct a bibliometric analysis of technology acceptance and adoption by using advanced tools that were conceived specifically for this purpose. In addition, the examination was not limited to a certain era and aimed to give a worldwide overview of eHealth service acceptance and adoption.

Keywords

Citation

Cobelli, N. and Blasioli, E. (2023), "To be or not to be digital? A bibliometric analysis of adoption of eHealth services", The TQM Journal, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 299-331. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-02-2023-0065

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Nicola Cobelli and Emanuele Blasioli

License

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


1. Introduction

1.1 Digital innovation and healthcare industry

Many studies have described that, owing to digital tools, we are seeing a shift in the way that healthcare services are delivered (Carboni et al., 2022; Gaddi et al., 2013; George et al., 2012). In this shift, information technology (IT) and information and communication technology (ICT) have played a critical role and have the potential ability to make healthcare more accessible, minimize adverse occurrences and lower operational costs (Thuemmler and Bai, 2017, pp. 2168–2194). The creation of technologies (i.e. apps, programs, software) has used IT and ICT tools to improve existing procedures inside healthcare facilities (Haluza and Jungwirth, 2018). The adoption of these technologies can result in a variety of benefits, including quicker access to personal health data and increased sustainability, efficacy, efficiency and quality of delivered services (Scheibner et al., 2021).

In this sense, there are two major digital innovations that the healthcare industry can enjoy, namely electronic Health (eHealth) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Impedovo and Pirlo, 2019; Shaikh et al., 2023). In the following paragraphs, these two categories of innovation will be reviewed, specifying that our study focuses on the adoption of one of the two, namely eHealth.

1.2 AI for the healthcare industry

The role played by AI in the digitalization process of various industry sectors, including healthcare, is substantial. The increasing utilization of EHRs and digital imaging offers AI the opportunity to support patients and providers (Shaikh et al., 2023). AI applications include not only the utilization of machine learning (ML) algorithms for real-time data but also IoT eHealth ecosystems to support informal caregivers and vulnerable populations (Blasioli and Hassini, 2022). The proper management, interpretation and use of the data about the user or patient and their condition generated by the novel person-centered service model pose one of the major challenges in the relationship between eHealth and IoT. The techniques and ML methodologies finding application in healthcare depend on both the data and the IoT infrastructure under consideration (Cabestany et al., 2018). Below, we offer a succinct description of the most common AI branches with eHealth applications.

Natural language processing (NLP). Computers' ability to understand and process the natural language. Systems can make sense of a written text and perform different tasks, including topic classification, translation, synthesis and spell checking.

ML (algorithms trained with datasets capable of producing outputs from given inputs) techniques:

  1. Supervised learning. Labeled datasets are used to trained ML models to learn and increase accuracy. The trained datasets include inputs and outputs: the accuracy in learning is measured by the algorithm by means of the loss function, minimizing the error until a threshold is met. Commonly used learning methods in this category include linear regression, logistic regression, neural networks, random forest and support vector machines (SVMs),

  2. Unsupervised learning. In this case, the datasets used are unlabeled. This technique allows us to find patterns or trends when there is no knowledge a priori available about the structure of the data. In this case, possible functions that can define the hidden structure from the unlabeled data are deduced as the learning algorithms do not contain any labels to supervise the learning/training (Dike et al., 2018). Unsupervised ML algorithms typically involve clustering, anomaly detection and neural networks (NN), and

  3. Semi-supervised learning. By combining the two methods described above, algorithms attempt to enhance the performance in one of the tasks utilizing the information associated with the other. To tackle a classification problem, for example, additional data points for which the label is unclear may be used. On the other hand, for clustering techniques, the learning process might benefit by being aware of the fact that specific data points belong to the same class (Van Engelen and Hoos, 2020).

Access to recommendations and automated treatments, as well as personalized medicine, are two eHealth areas that could greatly benefit from the introduction of AI approaches (Cabestany et al., 2018).

1.3 eHealth and its subcategories

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines eHealth as the cost-effective and secure application of ICT in support of health and health-related disciplines, such as healthcare services, health surveillance, health publications, and health education, knowledge, and research (World Health Organization [WHO], 2005, pp. 121–123). There is clear evidence that eHealth is having an increasing influence on the delivery of healthcare throughout the world, and it is making health systems more efficient and responsive to people's needs and expectations.

Increasingly, the term eHealth is placed alongside its subcategories mHealth, uHealth, telehealth and telemedicine (Bai et al., 2021; Lee and Yoon, 2021). Often, these terms are used interchangeably although they have specific meanings that differentiate one from the other.

Specifically, mHealth is a subgroup of eHealth and refers to the use of mobile devices in healthcare (Hamberger et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2018; Park, 2016). The growing number of mobile devices has increased interest in developing and creating applications that could be installed and used to monitor one's health.

However, uHealth refers to healthcare systems that are particularly useful in the management of chronic diseases or those that require long-term care (Hamberger et al., 2022). It has the potential to facilitate diagnoses, improve the quality of care and reduce medical costs (Kim et al., 2022).

The WHO (1998) defines telemedicine as:

The delivery of health care services where distance is a critical factor by all health care professionals using ICT for the exchange of valid information for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease and injuries, research and evaluation, and continuing education of health care providers, all in the interests of advancing the health of individuals and communities (p. 10).

Finally, telehealth differs from telemedicine in that it encompasses a larger range of remote healthcare services than telemedicine. Although telemedicine refers to remote clinical services, telehealth may also refer to remote non-clinical services, such as provider training, administrative meetings and continuing medical education (Krupinski and Bernard, 2014).

In a chiaroscuro of opinions, eHealth services appear essential but there is considerable resistance to their adoption (Asthana et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2022; Klöcker, 2015). Thus, it is certainly appropriate to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the studies that have been conducted so far to take stock of the situation and to understand the ways to possibly act so that eHealth services are understood and the distrust that is encountered is comprehended.

More precisely, our study intends to answer the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1.

How have studies on the adoption of eHealth developed over time?

RQ2.

In which countries have studies been conducted on this topic and who are the authors who conducted these studies?

RQ3.

What are the most cited studies that have inspired subsequent research?

RQ4.

Based on our findings, what is the developing potential for further research?

We decided to focus our study circumscribing it to UTAUT and UTAUT2 for the following reasons:

  1. UTAUT and UTAUT2 are two of the most innovative research models, carrying the constructions of several earlier models (Tamilmani et al., 2021).

  2. UTAUT and UTAUT2 have been effectively employed in other healthcare services studies to assess the rationale for technology adoption or non-adoption (Haikal et al., 2022).

  3. UTAUT and UTAUT2 could anticipate whether the healthcare business would adopt new technology (Duarte and Pinho, 2019).

2. Bibliometric analysis in contemporary research

This study uses bibliometric analysis to conduct a comprehensive review to map the use of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2) research models in academic studies on healthcare industry. A growing body of scholarly work has been devoted to defining and to mapping the intellectual structure of diverse research topics.

Bibliometric studies are considered an important tool to evaluate research proceedings and to address knowledge gaps (Abramo and D'Angelo, 2011; Moed, 2006). Large-scale bibliometric research is possible because of the creation and development of the Science Citation Index (SCI), which currently incorporates the Web of Science (WoS), a Clarivate Analytics (formerly Thomson Reuters)-maintained platform, in 1963. In addition, within WoS, we find two more indexes that complement the SCI: the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI; Wouters, 2006). Until the creation of Scopus and Google Scholar in 2004, the scientific community relied uniquely on the WoS for citation analysis (Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016). However, the use of Google Scholar for research evaluation has raised doubts about its suitability because of the low quality of data that is found in it, leaving WoS and Scopus as the main sources for citation data (Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016). The WoS and Scopus are highly representative of the entire research output in the natural and formal sciences. Their use in bibliometric research makes this methodology a better solution than peer review in terms of robustness, validity, functionality, costs and execution times (Abramo and D'Angelo, 2011). During the past few decades, the WoS has been widely adopted as a source for bibliometric analysis in a variety of scientific fields (Hossain, 2020; Merigó and Yang, 2017; Shukla et al., 2020; Yu and He, 2020; Yu et al., 2017). The decision to adopt the WoS for our study reached a unanimous consensus given the database's features, its reputation and its suitability for the purpose of our work (Zhang et al., 2016).

3. Research method

It was planned to perform a bibliometric analysis that would focus primarily on two acceptance models: (a) the UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and (b) the UTAUT2 (Venkatesh et al., 2012). These models, among many others, were found as a result of the widespread investigation of the variables that influence technology acceptability in the healthcare industry (Rouidi et al., 2022).

As was mentioned, the focus was on the adoption of eHealth services. Bibliometric data were analyzed by using a variety of tools, helping the authors to examine the phenomenon from various perspectives.

Records were initially searched by using the following association of keywords and Boolean operators: “eHealth” OR “telemedicine” OR “mHealth” OR “uhealth” OR “telehealth” AND “adoption” OR “acceptance” AND “utaut” OR “utaut 2” OR “utaut*” OR “Unified Theory of Technology Acceptance” OR “Unified Theory of Technology Acceptance 2” OR “Unified Theory of Technology Acceptance*”.

We searched the WoS database, which, as was said, is one of the most significant tools for gathering systematic information on worldwide scientific literature (Zhu and Liu, 2020). The records that emerged were filtered by language and scientific sectors. In particular, the study focused on records in English and that related to the WoS categories “economics,” “management,” “social psychology,” “health literacy and telemedicine,” and “health policy.”

To strengthen the robustness of our study, we double-checked all the documents that were retrieved from this database. These records were compiled by using EndNote 20.2.1 software for further sorting. EndNote's “Find Duplicates” feature was used to eliminate duplicate data. Then, coauthors manually inspected the records to identify any duplicates that were not eliminated by the technology and publications that were not initially published in English.

We did not limit the examination to a certain era, and we included every record that was identified by the search criteria, regardless of the year that it was published. This was done to capture research from diverse periods. Further, we included any study, regardless of the sample's origin, because one of our purposes was to give a worldwide perspective, whereas proceedings, reports and non-peer-reviewed records were excluded.

After a careful reading of the books and book chapters deriving from the data collection, it was decided not to include them in the analyzed sample. In fact, although there were book chapters and books on the topic, these did not present empirical studies. On the contrary, they were mainly conceptual. Instead, we were interested in analyzing systematic contributions that have empirically studied eHealth adoption.

This stage of the sorting procedure resulted in the selection of 105 distinct English-language scientific articles (see Appendix).

4. Data analysis

4.1 Analysis overview

As was mentioned, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to study the evolution of the research on the topic of eHealth services acceptance and adoption and emerging research trends, evaluating the impact of the publications that were produced and the productivity of the authors, as well as understanding the potential collaboration patterns between countries.

The first part of this section presents some descriptive statistics about the impact of authors, scientific publications and journals. The second part analyzes the distribution of scientific publications by adopting a three-field plot in which the field selected have been, respectively, publications, keywords and journals. The third section focuses on the methodologies to perform network analysis: co-citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis and bibliographic coupling. Network analyses can help to explain the knowledge, the intellectual structure and the evolution of a research area. A methodology such as co-citation analysis allows for the mapping of subject-specific specialties and the identification of themes in research topics among the clusters of publications (Braam et al., 1991).

4.2 Published literature: descriptive analytics

We conducted a preliminary analysis of the corpus of publications, as shown in Figure 1.

As can be seen from Figure 1, the number of studies that have used the UTAUT and UTAUT2 models has grown considerably and there was a particularly significant peak from 2019 to 2022 when the total number of publications equaled 75 units (71.4%), of the 105 that constitute the sample. It is even more significant that the greatest peak occurred between 2020 and 2022, which are years that were marked by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Subsequently, we used the software BibExcel. This is a bibliometric software (Persson et al., 2009) that was used to conduct a preliminary analysis of the publications and to generate a co-citation network file. Descriptive statistics are useful for capturing some of the major trends in the literature, embracing the distribution of publications studying the acceptance and/or adoption of eHealth.

In a second phase, the network file was opened using Gephi, a network science software (Bastian et al., 2009), to display and to further analyze the co-citation data that was generated by BibExcel, resulting in different network maps and topic clusters of the co-citation network.

Table 1 displays the most cited authors, whereas Table 2 displays the most cited papers within our network. Table 1 highlights how Venkatesh is the most cited author (21 citations in total). Davis (1989) follows in order with 7 citations and the other authors in the table with 5 citations. Table 2 confirms the importance of Venkatesh's work. Precisely Venkatesh and Davis (2000) can be considered as seminal of the two papers Venkatesh et al. (2003) and Venkatesh et al. (2012) in which the UTAUT and UTAUT2 models have been precisely elaborated.

4.3 Three-field plot analysis

A three-field plot provides a graphical representation of data that are organized into three columns. To generate this graph, an R package that is known as Bibliometrix was used. Developed by Aria and Cuccurullo (2017), Bibliometrix is equipped with tools for quantitative research in bibliometrics and scientometrics, addressing data collection, data analysis (descriptive analysis, network analysis and normalization) and data visualization (conceptual structure and network mapping).

Three-field plots, using Sankey diagrams, were used to study the patterns, trends and relationships among three selected fields. A Sankey diagram is a visualization that is used to represent a flow from one set of values to another. Connected elements are called nodes and connections are called links. The use of encryption keys is ideal for showing a “many-to-many” mapping between two domains or multiple paths through a set of stages. Sankey diagrams are frequently used in bibliometric analyses (Linnenluecke et al., 2020). Each column represents a dimension of the information. From left to right, the columns report:

  1. publications,

  2. keywords, and

  3. journals (called “sources”).

We decided to limit the number of elements for each column to 10 (Zhang et al., 2016). Each rectangular node's size indicates the frequency of occurrence of a certain publication, keyword or author in the studied data (larger rectangles indicate higher frequencies). The number of connections or linkages between the nodes is indicated by the breadth of the connections between them (bigger nodes indicate stronger connections between fields). These measurements offer a visual depiction of the relative weight or frequency of each data point. The first column, which includes the research papers' titles in more detail, indicates the articles' specific areas of interest. Information about the academic journals is provided in the third column, allowing us to determine the most productive writers in a certain subject and get a sense of the network of collaborative research initiatives. The categories authors-keyword in the first graph and keyword-plus in the second graph are connected via the middle column.

In the WoS, Keyword Plus is a methodology to index scientific articles that allows for the inclusion of broader and more general terms than Author Keywords thus identifying related studies that might be missed if relying solely on the latter method (Zhang et al., 2016). However, Author Keywords provides a more accurate and precise picture of the research topic. Given the complementary nature of the two methods, we display a three-field plot that uses Author Keywords and another that uses Keyword Plus (see Figure 2).

The article by Venkatesh et al. (2003; “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view”) dominated the network (frequency = 15.00), comprising seven out of the 10 keywords (Author Keywords). Specifically, the work by Venkatesh et al. (2003) was connected to seven of the research themes that were identified by the keywords in the central column. It was followed by the publication by Venkatesh et al. (2012; “Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”), which was connected to six out of the 10 keywords in the central column (frequency = 8.00). The dominant theme that was identified by the Author Keywords was eHealth (frequency = 21.00), which emerged as a relevant theme in seven out of the 10 papers listed in the left column. Further, it had been treated by three out of the 10 journals listed in the right column (Journal of Medical Internet Research, Canadian Family Physician and Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy). The keyword digital health (frequency = 4.00) appeared also significantly connected to the journals in the right column and had three connections in total. The most important journals were International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing (frequency = 7.00), which had three connections among the keywords, and JMIR Formative Research (frequency = 4.00), which had four connections among the keywords.

Substituting Author Keywords with Keyword Plus (see Figure 3), we can appreciate that the Keyword Plus algorithm resulted in a more diversified list than the list that was generated by Author Keywords in which some fields might overlap (such as eHealth and e-health). This allowed us to enrich the previous analysis. By expanding the coverage from keywords that were explicitly mentioned by authors to the co-occurrence of keywords within and across papers, the resulting list of Keyword Plus helps to identify research areas that are interconnected and the most important or influential keywords in a specific field.

It is possible to note that the study by Venkatesh et al. (2003; frequency = 22.00) still dominates the network, having 8 out of the 10 connections among the keywords in the central column, followed by the work by Venkatesh and Davis (2000), frequency = 9.00), which shares 7 connections, and Venkatesh et al. (2012; frequency = 9.00), having 4 connections among the keywords. The most dominant keywords were adoption (frequency = 17.00) and acceptance (frequency = 14.00). The two shared six connections among the papers and three among the journals. The most relevant journal was International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing (frequency = 5.00), which treated five out of the 10 keywords, followed by Telemedicine Journal and e-Health (frequency = 4.00), having 4 connections among the keywords in the central column.

4.4 Network analysis

The network analysis that we present combines techniques. Specifically, we used co-citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis and bibliographic coupling (Boyack and Klavans, 2010). Bibliographic coupling and co-citation analysis originated several decades ago whereas co-citation analysis was adopted in the 1970s. Since then, it has been the preferred approach (Boyack and Klavans, 2010). Although these three approaches are not combined, Small (1997) proposed using them together. We present different results from the deployment of these methods to provide insights from distinct perspectives in the analysis of our network of publications.

A co-citation network analysis was performed by using Gephi, a powerful open-source software that is capable of displaying large networks in real time (Bastian et al., 2009). Tracking pairs of publications that are referenced together in source articles is what co-citation analysis (Small, 1973) is about. When many writers mention the same pair of publications, research clusters emerge. The publications that are co-cited in these clusters usually have a shared subject. Gephi offers a wide range of filtering methods and tools, which allows for high levels of flexibility and performance in the handling of large sets of data. Co-citation studies represent a widely used methodology in quantitative studies of science, in particular, author co-citation analysis and document co-citation analysis. One of the most important insights that can be obtained by analyzing co-citation relationships is the identification of patterns, in addition to the uncovering of the intellectual structure of a field (Pilkington and Meredith, 2009) and the unveiling of the ways that research has evolved (Chen et al., 2010). A preliminary step consisted of manipulating the data set by using BibExcel through which a network file was generated and that was used in Gephi. Once generated, the co-citation network data were elaborated on by using Gephi for network analysis and visualization. For this purpose, we selected the first 200 co-cited documents. The obtained graph was weighted and directed and there was a total of 198 nodes and 3,445 edges. Each node represented a single publication, whereas each edge represented the co-citation relationship between the documents. The directed nature of the graph referred to the relationship between the nodes whereby the nodes interacted in a specific direction (Node A interacted with Node B, not vice versa). The degree of a node referred to the number of links incident on it. The in-degree index referred to the number of incoming links, whereas the out-degree referred to the outgoing links. The term weight referred to the strength of the co-citation relationship. Through the co-citation analysis, it is possible to assess the frequency with which two entities, in this case scientific publications, are cited together within a network of publications, which results in the degree of association between the two entities.

The graph was adjusted by using ForceAtlas 2 to customize some of its parameters, such as the gravity and scaling parameters. ForceAtlas 2 is a force-directed continuous algorithm that computes the forces between nodes and edges whereby nodes repulse and edges attract (Jacomy et al., 2014). The corpus of forces that governs the algorithm ultimately finds a state of equilibrium.

Subsequently, a method for community detection was applied to identify and extract communities from the network. By selecting the Modularity function that is available from the Statistics panel, the software applied the Louvain algorithm (Blondel et al., 2008), which allows the clustering process. We obtained a modularity index of 0.380, which can be considered an index of moderate quality, and that allowed us to identify some communities that are small and less distinct.

The network analysis resulted in six main clusters. Figure 4 shows how the co-citation and cluster analysis methods of scientometrics are used to perform a comprehensive analysis of the papers on the topic that is related to the study of eHealth services.

The complexity of the resulting network can be explained by looking at some key indicators, in particular, the PageRank algorithm that is used to order the documents according to their importance.

Conceived by Brin and Page (1998), this algorithm aimed to rank webpages by importance by making use of the link structure of the web, finding extensive applications in various domains. In the case of a co-citation network, the PageRank algorithm calculates a score for each document according to the PageRank scores of the other documents converging in it, weighting the score according to the importance of the edges. The computational process is iterative and stops once a stable value is found.

We defined G as a directed and weighted network, G=(V,E), where V is the set of vertices that represents the documents and E is the set of edges that represents the citations. The indexes i and j belong to the set of vertices V (i,jV) and identify, respectively, document i and document j; the number of citations from document i to document j is represented by one single directed edge (i,j)E (Fiala and Tutoky, 2017). The PageRank score PR(j) for document j depends on the PageRank scores of all the documents that cite j. Finally, we have a parameter, d, known as the damping factor, and the out-degree of Dout(i).

The mathematical formulation of the algorithm follows:

(1)PR(j)=1d|V|+d(i,j)EPR(i)Dout(i)

Therefore, PageRank was used to classify the publications that were extracted for each cluster because it represents a metric that describes the importance of a document in the network. We report the top 10 publications for each cluster (with the exception of Clusters 5 and 6, which had a smaller number of nodes), hierarchically selected according to the PageRank index, in Table 3.

Once the clustering process was complete, the main research topics for each cluster were analyzed. Table 4 presents the primary research themes, characterizing each community and the percentage of records in the sample that were investigated. Clusters 1, 2 and 3 represent the vast majority of our sample for a total of 88.4%. Clusters 4, 5 and 6 occupy a considerably minor space within the network.

5. Discussion and conclusion

The bibliometric analysis, conducted with the help of a variety of software to refine the search and to identify the relationships between the papers, leads to some noteworthy considerations.

In regard to the dates of the publications, it can be said that the vast majority of them are after 2015. There are certainly some earlier contributions, but they represent only 10.5% of the sample of identified records. We found that as much as 89.5% of the investigated sample consisted of studies that were conducted between 2016 and 2022. It should be remembered that UTAUT dates to 2003 and the first study on the adoption of eHealth services through UTAUT to 2007. In fact, the studies that emerged often focused on the application of an eHealth system in relation to a specific service. It should be remembered that the UTAUT and UTAUT2 research models investigate the acceptance and the consequent adoption of an innovation, which, in our case, is eHealth services. Therefore, if there are relatively few studies that have been identified, it seems to be possible to say that much remains to be done to understand the true intention to adopt innovation in healthcare management.

In addition, it is interesting that among the records that were identified in the bibliometric analysis, the vast majority of journals were of a medical nature. If it is true that, by its nature, an issue, such as the adoption of eHealth services, is closely linked to medical practice, many studies have highlighted the ways that the adoption of innovative services, such as eHealth, can only take place in the presence of multidisciplinary skills (De Grood et al., 2016; Van Velsen et al., 2013), including technical and IT, as well as economic and managerial ones. It is interesting to note that medical studies themselves believe in the need for transversal skills in the adoption of innovations such as eHealth services (Razmak et al., 2018; Swinkels et al., 2018). This confirms the importance of creating teams to support healthcare professionals. For example, according to Gaddi and Capello (2014), the slow diffusion of telemedicine and its patchy distribution is closely linked to the fact that telemedicine must not be implemented by doctors alone, but interdisciplinary teams are needed.

From the bibliometric analysis that was conducted, it is clear that, at least in terms of scientific journals, there are very few IT, managerial and economic journals that deal with this topic. Referring to some of the most popular rankings for management and economics journals, none of the contributions that were covered by this bibliometric analysis were among the journals that were present in the FT50 rankings or in the broader Academic Journal Guide (AJG) 2021 rankings, produced by the Chartered Association of Business Schools. Yet, it is clear that the implementation of eHealth services has cost reduction among its objectives because the WHO defines eHealth as “the cost-effective and secure use of information and communications technologies in support of health and health-related fields” (WHO, 2005, p. 121). By its very nature, the implementation of eHealth services has economic and managerial implications, which, however, still need to be explored in the scientific literature.

From the analysis of the clusters of contributions making up the sample investigated, it emerges how Cluster 1 brings together works that study the healthcare services available through IT technologies. The studies were conducted on the end users to understand their level of acceptance of the new services provided. More specifically these studies focus on mobile health adoption factors, eHealth perception and use, and acceptance of augmented reality in healthcare. Part of these contributions focuses on user acceptance theories. Cluster 2 always focuses on end user acceptance and precisely on the factors that determine adoption in its various forms (i.e. the Barriers, Facilitators toward eHealth services). Cluster 2 focuses on end user acceptance again and precisely on the factors that determine adoption in its various forms (i.e. the barriers and facilitators towards eHealth services). Precisely, it focuses on the factors that determine adoption in its various forms (i.e. the barriers, facilitators towards eHealth services and the impact on healthcare systems of eHealth services utilization). A part of these contributions focuses on aspects of data privacy and security, while the attitude of healthcare professionals is studied only together with that of end users. Cluster 3 is entirely focused on Telemedicine and Telehealth as a tool for maintaining the relationship with their patient in relation to their mental health. A part of these contributions focuses on the mental disorders developed during the COVID-19 pandemic and tried to explain how eHealth services could be of help in the absence of physical presence between the end user and the healthcare professional. Custer 4 represents a small minority of the topics that emerged from the analysis. This appears to be quite surprising, as Cluster 4 collects relevant methodological contributions that try to explain, with an empirical approach, the factors that lead to acceptance or abandonment of eHealth services. It can therefore be said that from our sample it emerges that most studies have focused on a specific eHealth technology, but few have come to theorize or hypothesize the reasons for the greater or lesser acceptance of eHealth services in general. If the studies certainly have their own “internal validity”, it cannot be said that there is “external validity”. If Cluster 6 is entirely focused on the opportunity to provide eHealth services on the African continent, Cluster 5, absolutely minority compared to the others, brings together studies focusing on the economic impact and how eHealth services and in general the digitization of health services could bring at cost savings.

Finally, from the analysis of the clusters it is clear that most of the articles focus on the acceptance of eHealth services by end users. There were very few studies that focused instead on the propensity to of healthcare professionals to adopt them. Certainly, it is important to know the propensity of the end user but the adoption process can only start with healthcare professionals. Therefore, before listening to the opinion of patients, it would be desirable to pay attention to the opinion of professionals. Their conviction and determination are, in fact, fundamental for innovative services, such as those investigated, to take hold (Veikkolainen et al., 2023).

6. Limitations and further research opportunities

Like any research work, this study has some limitations. It could be pointed out that the data were collected from the WoS database. Therefore, the limitations of the use of one database may apply to this study. In truth, some scholars encourage the use of the WoS for bibliometric analysis (Hossain, 2020; Merigó and Yang, 2017; Shukla et al., 2020; Yu and He, 2020; Yu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016).

Other limitations of the study should be considered. For example, we are fully aware that this bibliometric analysis focused on two specific research models, UTAUT and UTAUT2. It would come as no surprise that the use of other models would lead to different records and hopefully different journals.

However, the overall goal of this study was to present an overview of the prominent trends according to key bibliometric indices. As a result, journal readers have gained a broad image of the most important records. However, these results are dynamic and subject to change when new mainstream themes emerge, and particular factors increase or decrease their place in the journals.

In regard to research opportunities, it is hoped that in the future, a more central role is given to the healthcare professional, who is believed to be the hub of the adoption of eHealth services. Until there is full awareness of their propensity to use these services, eHealth will remain an excellent project on paper that is only applied in particularly critical and extremely necessary moments (e.g. the COVID-19 pandemic).

The adoption of eHealth services should not happen suddenly or because of the good intuition of a luminary. The adoption of eHealth becomes fruitful when processes are created, and the entire interdisciplinary staff is committed to them.

Figures

Publications over time

Figure 1

Publications over time

Three-field plot using References, Author Keywords and Sources

Figure 2

Three-field plot using References, Author Keywords and Sources

Three-field plot using Reference, Keyword Plus and Sources

Figure 3

Three-field plot using Reference, Keyword Plus and Sources

Co-citation network with six clusters

Figure 4

Co-citation network with six clusters

Authors cited at least five times

CitationsAuthor(s)
13Venkatesh V, 2003
8Venkatesh V, 2000
7Davis FD, 1989
5Nazi KM, 2013
5Tavares J, 2016
5Hoque R, 2017
5Dwivedi YK, 2019
5Hoogenbosch B, 2018

Source(s): Table by authors

Publications receiving at least five citations

CitationsPaper
13Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 425-478
8Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204
7Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L. and Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 157–178
5Tavares, J. and Oliveira, T. (2016), “Electronic health record patient portal adoption by health care consumers: an acceptance model and survey”, Journal of medical Internet Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, article e5069
5Hoque, R. and Sorwar, G. (2017). “Understanding factors influencing the adoption of mHealth by the elderly: An extension of the UTAUT model”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 101, pp. 75-84
5Hoogenbosch, B., Postma, J., de Man-van Ginkel, J.M., Tiemessen, N.A., van Delden, J.J. and van Os-Medendorp, H. (2018), “Use and the users of a patient portal: cross-sectional study”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 20 No. 9, article e262
5Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M. and Williams, M.D. (2019), “Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 21, pp. 719-734
5Mann, D.M., Chen, J., Chunara, R., Testa, P.A. and Nov, O. (2020), “COVID-19 transforms health care through telemedicine: evidence from the field”, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1132–1135

Source(s): Table by authors

Main research topics identified in each cluster

ClusterLabelMain research topics
Cluster 1 (32.32%)User Acceptance of Information Technology in Healthcare
  • Theoretical frameworks on ICT user acceptance in healthcare

  • Factors affecting mobile health adoption

  • Use and perception of eHealth

  • Medical applications of Augmented Reality (AR)

Cluster 2 (32.34%)Patient Portal and Personal Health Record Adoption and Use
  • Factors involved in PHRs' adoption

  • Impact of PHRs on Healthcare Service Utilization

  • EHRs: solutions, facilitators, and barriers

  • Effect on the use of healthcare Services

  • Chronic disease management and secure messaging

Cluster 3 (23.74%)Telemedicine and Telehealth in Mental Health
  • Implementation and integration of Telemedicine and Telehealth

  • Relationship between Telemedicine/Telehealth and patients: perspectives, attitudes, preferences and satisfaction

  • The role of telemedicine in using clinical Pharmacist Services

  • The Role of Telemedicine and Telehealth in Response to COVID-19

  • The adoption and participation barriers for Telemedicine and Telehealth

Cluster 4 (5.56%)eHealth Adoption and Utilization; Digital Divide; Health Literacy
  • Diffusion of Innovations in eHealth

  • Digital Divide in eHealth

  • The relationship between Health Literacy and eHealth acceptance and utilization

  • Utilization of eHealth solution for self-care in patients with chronic conditions

  • Predictors of the eHealth usage and the digital divide

Cluster 5 (1.01%)Remote Patient Monitoring and Health Economics
  • The role of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes

  • Quality-adjusted life years and cost-effectiveness analysis

Cluster 6 (3.03%)Health Information Systems and Data Collection in Africa
  • The role of health information systems on decision making in African countries

  • Implementation strategies for improving health information systems in sub-Saharan Africa

Source(s): Table by authors

The records constituting the sample analyzed

IDAuthorsTitleSource titleYear
1Mittal, Amit; Mantri, Archana; Tandon, Urvashi; Dwivedi, Yogesh KA unified perspective on the adoption of online teaching in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemicINFORMATION DISCOVERY AND DELIVERY2022
2Schmitz, Anne; Diaz-Martin, Ana M.; Guillen, Jesus YagueModifying UTAUT2 for a cross-country comparison of telemedicine adoptionCOMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR2022
3Khan, Tajdar; Khan, Khush Dil; Azhar, Muhammad Salman; Shah, Syed Nadir Ali; Uddin, Mohammed Mahin; Khan, Tariq HabibMobile health services and the elderly: Assessing the determinants of technology adoption readiness in PakistanJOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS2022
4Ong, Ardvin Kester S.; Kurata, Yoshiki B.; Castro, Sophia Alessandra D. G.; De Leon, Jeanne Paulene B.; Dela Rosa, Hazel V.; Tomines, Alex Patricia JFactors influencing the acceptance of telemedicine in the PhilippinesTECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY2022
5Tan, Yi Ru; Tan, Maw Pin; Khor, Mei Mei; Hoh, Hon Bing; Saedon, Nor'Izzati; Hasmukharay, Kejal; Tan, Kit Mun; Chin, Ai Vyrn; Kamaruzzaman, Shahrul B.; Ong, Terence; Davey, Gareth; Khor, Hui MinAcceptance of virtual consultations among older adults and caregivers in Malaysia: a pilot study during the COVID-19 pandemicPOSTGRADUATE MEDICINE2022
6Liu, Yizhi; Lu, Xuan; Zhao, Gang; Li, Chengjiang; Shi, JunyiAdoption of mobile health services using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model: Self-efficacy and privacy concernsFRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY2022
7Cruz, Antonio Miguel; Portillo, Hector Perez Lopez; Daum, Christine; Rutledge, Emily; King, Sharla; Liu, LiliTechnology Acceptance and Usability of a Mobile App to Support the Workflow of Health Care Aides Who Provide Services to Older Adults: Pilot Mixed Methods StudyJMIR AGING2022
8Pagaling, Gerald T.; Espiritu, Adrian I.; Dellosa, Marie Antoinette A.; Leochico, Carl Froilan D.; Pasco, Paul Matthew DThe practice of teleneurology in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemicNEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES2022
9Tian, Xiu-Fu; Wu, Run-ZeDeterminants of the Mobile Health Continuance Intention of Elders with Chronic Diseases: An Integrated Framework of ECM-ISC and UTAUTINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH2022
10Palas, Jahir Uddin; Sorwar, Golam; Hoque, Md Rakibul; Sivabalan, AchchuthanFactors influencing the elderly's adoption of mHealth: an empirical study using extended UTAUT2 modelBMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING2022
11Kaphzan, Hanoch; Sarfati Noiman, Margaret; Negev, MayaThe Attitudes and Perceptions of Israeli Psychiatrists Toward Telepsychiatry and Their Behavioral Intention to Use TelepsychiatryFRONTIERS IN PSYCHIATRY2022
12Rouidi, Mohammed; Elouadi, Abdelmajid; Hamdoune, AmineAcceptance and use of telemedicine technology by health professionals: Development of a conceptual modelDIGITAL HEALTH2022
13Wu, Pei; Zhang, Runtong; Luan, Jing; Zhu, MinghaoFactors affecting physicians using mobile health applications: an empirical studyBMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH2022
14Schretzlmaier, Patrik; Hecker, Achim; Ammenwerth, ElskeSuitability of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 Model for Predicting mHealth Acceptance Using Diabetes as an Example: Qualitative Methods Triangulation StudyJMIR HUMAN FACTORS2022
15Zhu, Zhangxiang; Liu, Yongmei; Cao, Xianye; Dong, WeiFactors Affecting Customer Intention to Adopt a Mobile Chronic Disease Management Service: Differentiating Age Effect From Experiential Distance PerspectiveJOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND END USER COMPUTING2022
16Ma, Yin; Luo, MuyuanOlder people's intention to use medical apps during the COVID-19 pandemic in China: an application of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model and the Technology of Acceptance Model (TAM)AGEING AND SOCIETY2022
17Maleka, Ntibaneng Hunadi; Matli, WalterA review of telehealth during the COVID-19 emergency situation in the public health sector: challenges and opportunitiesJOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY MANAGEMENT2022
18Choi, Wona; Chang, Se-Hyun; Yang, Yoon-Sik; Jung, Surin; Lee, Seo-Joon; Chun, Ji-Won; Kim, Dai-Jin; Lee, Woonjeong; Choi, In YoungStudy of the factors influencing the use of MyData platform based on personal health record data sharing systemBMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING2022
19Owusu Kwateng, Kwame; Darko-Larbi, Offei; Amanor, KofiA modified UTAUT2 for the study of telemedicine adoptionINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT2022
20Alam, Mohammad Zahedul; Khanam, LizaComparison of the young aged and elderly female users' adoption of mHealth servicesHEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL2022
21Bhatt, Vaidik; Chakraborty, SamyadipIntrinsic Antecedents to mHealth Adoption Intention: An SEM-ANN ApproachINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT RESEARCH2022
22Vervier, Luisa; Ziefle, MartinaA Meta-analytical View on the Acceptance of Mhealth AppsICT4AWE: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 8TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR AGEING WELL AND E-HEALTH2022
23Yousef, Consuela C.; Salgado, Teresa M.; Farooq, Ali; Burnett, Keisha; McClelland, Laura E.; Abu Esba, Laila C.; Alhamdan, Hani S.; Khoshhal, Sahal; Aldossary, Ibrahim; Alyas, Omar A.; DeShazo, Jonathan PPredicting Health Care Providers' Acceptance of a Personal Health Record Secure Messaging FeatureAPPLIED CLINICAL INFORMATICS2022
24Ben Arfi, Wissal; Ben Nasr, Imed; Kondrateva, Galina; Hikkerova, LubicaThe role of trust in intention to use the IoT in eHealth: Application of the modified UTAUT in a consumer contextTECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE2021
25Ben Arfi, Wissal; Ben Nasr, Imed; Khvatova, Tatiana; Ben Zaied, YounesUnderstanding acceptance of eHealthcare by IoT natives and IoT immigrants: An integrated model of UTAUT, perceived risk, and financial costTECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE2021
26Baudier, Patricia; Kondrateva, Galina; Ammi, Chantal; Chang, Victor; Schiavone, FrancescoPatients' perceptions of teleconsultation during COVID-19: A cross-national studyTECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE2021
27Rahi, Samar; Khan, Mubbsher Munawar; Alghizzawi, MahmoudFactors influencing the adoption of telemedicine health services during COVID-19 pandemic crisis: an integrative research modelENTERPRISE INFORMATION SYSTEMS2021
28Alam, Mirza Mohammad Didarul; Alam, Mohammad Zahedul; Rahman, Syed Abidur; Taghizadeh, Seyedeh KhadijehFactors influencing mHealth adoption and its impact on mental well-being during COVID-19 pandemic: A SEM-ANN approachJOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS2021
29Tomczyk, Samuel; Barth, Simon; Schmidt, Silke; Muehlan, HolgerUtilizing Health Behavior Change and Technology Acceptance Models to Predict the Adoption of COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps: Cross-sectional Survey StudyJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH2021
30Shiferaw, Kirubel Biruk; Mengiste, Shegaw Anagaw; Gullslett, Monika Knudsen; Zeleke, Atinkut Alamirrew; Tilahun, Binyam; Tebeje, Tsion; Wondimu, Robel; Desalegn, Surafel; Mehari, Eden AbetuHealthcare providers' acceptance of telemedicine and preference of modalities during COVID-19 pandemics in a low-resource setting: An extended UTAUT modelPLOS ONE2021
31Wang, Huanlin; Liang, LanYu; Du, ChunLin; Wu, YongKangImplementation of Online Hospitals and Factors Influencing the Adoption of Mobile Medical Services in China: Cross-Sectional Survey StudyJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH2021
32AlQudah, Adi A.; Al-Emran, Mostafa; Shaalan, KhaledTechnology Acceptance in Healthcare: A Systematic ReviewAPPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL2021
33Pan, Minghao; Gao, WeiDeterminants of the behavioral intention to use a mobile nursing application by nurses in ChinaBMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH2021
34Barua, Zapan; Barua, AditaAcceptance and usage of mHealth technologies amid COVID-19 pandemic in a developing country: the UTAUT combined with situational constraint and health consciousnessJOURNAL OF ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES2021
35Moudud-Ul-Huq, Syed; Sultana Swarna, Rebeka; Sultana, MahmudaElderly and middle-aged intention to use m-health services: an empirical evidence from a developing countryJOURNAL OF ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES2021
36Serrano, Karina M.; Mendes, Glauco H. S.; Lizarelli, Fabiane L.; Ganga, Gilberto M. DAssessing the telemedicine acceptance for adults in BrazilINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE2021
37Fitrianie, Siska; Horsch, Corine; Beun, Robbert Jan; Griffioen-Both, Fiemke; Brinkman, Willem-PaulFactors Affecting User's Behavioral Intention and Use of a Mobile-Phone-Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia: A Small-Scale UTAUT AnalysisJOURNAL OF MEDICAL SYSTEMS2021
38Yousef, Consuela Cheriece; Salgado, Teresa M.; Farooq, Ali; Burnett, Keisha; McClelland, Laura E.; Thomas, Abin; Alenazi, Ahmed O.; Abu Esba, Laila Carolina; AlAzmi, Aeshah; Alhameed, Abrar Fahad; Hattan, Ahmed; Elgadi, Sumaya; Almekhloof, Saleh; AlShammary, Mohammed A.; Alanezi, Nazzal Abdullah; Alhamdan, Hani Solaiman; Khoshhal, Sahal; DeShazo, Jonathan PPredicting Patients' Intention to Use a Personal Health Record Using an Adapted Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model: Secondary Data AnalysisJMIR MEDICAL INFORMATICS2021
39Yousef, Consuela Cheriece; Salgado, Teresa M.; Farooq, Ali; Burnett, Keisha; McClelland, Laura E.; Abu Esba, Laila Carolina; Alhamdan, Hani Solaiman; Khoshhal, Sahal; Aldossary, Ibrahim Fahad; Alyas, Omar Anwar; DeShazo, Jonathan PHealth Care Providers' Acceptance of a Personal Health Record: Cross-sectional StudyJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH2021
40Beck-Hiestermann, Franziska Marie Lea; Kastner, Denise; Gumz, AntjeOnline psychotherapy in times of coronavirus disease 2019 Cross-sectional survey of German psychotherapistsPSYCHOTHERAPEUT2021
41Ahadzadeh, Ashraf Sadat; Wu, Shin Ling; Ong, Fon Sim; Deng, RuolanThe Mediating Influence of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology on the Relationship Between Internal Health Locus of Control and Mobile Health Adoption: Cross-sectional StudyJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH2021
42Yu, Kexin; Wu, Shinyi; Liu, Ruotong; Chi, IrisHarnessing mobile technology to support type 2 diabetes self-management among Chinese and Hispanic immigrants: a mixed-methods acceptability studyJOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN SOCIAL WORK2021
43Almegbel, Halah; Aloud, MoniraFactors Influencing the Adoption of mHealth Services in Saudi Arabia: A Patient-centered StudyINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND NETWORK SECURITY2021
44Adjei, Timothy Kwabena; Mohammed, Aliyu; Acheampong, Princess Ruhama; Acquah-Gyan, Emmanuel; Sylverken, Augustina; Twumasi-Ankrah, Sampson; Owusu, Michael; Owusu-Dabo, EllisDeterminants of a mobile phone-based Interactive Voice Response (mIVR) system for monitoring childhood illnesses in a rural district of Ghana: Empirical evidence from the UTAUT modelPLOS ONE2021
45Rahi, SamarAssessing individual behavior towards adoption of telemedicine application during COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from emerging marketLIBRARY HI TECH2021
46Namatovu, Hasifah Kasujja; Oyana, Tonny Justus; Sol, Henk GerardBarriers to eHealth adoption in routine antenatal care practices: Perspectives of expectant mothers in Uganda - A qualitative study using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology modelDIGITAL HEALTH2021
47Miguel Martins, Nayra Leandro; Duarte, Paulo; Pinho, Jose Carlos M. RAN ANALYSIS OF DETERMINANTS OF THE ADOPTION OF MOBILE HEALTH (MHEALTH)RAE-REVISTA DE ADMINISTRACAO DE EMPRESAS2021
48Miguel Martins, Nayra Leandro; Duarte, Paulo; Pinho, Jose Carlos M. RAn analysis of determinants of the adoption of Mobile Health (mHealth)RAE-REVISTA DE ADMINISTRACAO DE EMPRESAS2021
49Aborujiah, Abdulaziz; Long, Zalizah Awang; Nassr, Rasheed Mohammad; Husen, Mohd Nizam; Al-Othmani, AbdulaleemPost Acceptance Model for Online Teleconsultation services: An Empirical Study in MalaysiaINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING SYSTEMS2021
50Connolly, Samantha L.; Miller, Christopher J.; Lindsay, Jan A.; Bauer, Mark SA systematic review of providers' attitudes toward telemental health via videoconferencingCLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY-SCIENCE AND PRACTICE2020
51Alam, Mohammad Zahedul; Hoque, Md. Rakibul; Hu, Wang; Barua, ZapanFactors influencing the adoption of mHealth services in a developing country: A patient-centric studyINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT2020
52Alam, Mohammad Zahedul; Hu, Wang; Kaium, Md Abdul; Hoque, Md Rakibul; Alam, Mirza Mohammad DidarulUnderstanding the determinants of mHealth apps adoption in Bangladesh: A SEM-Neural network approachTECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY2020
53Yamin, Mohammad Ali Yousef; Alyoubi, Bader AAdoption of telemedicine applications among Saudi citizens during COVID-19 pandemic: An alternative health delivery systemJOURNAL OF INFECTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH2020
54Baudier, Patricia; Kondrateva, Galina; Ammi, ChantalThe future of Telemedicine Cabin? The case of the French students' acceptabilityFUTURES2020
55Huang, Chin-Yuan; Yang, Ming-ChinEmpirical Investigation of Factors Influencing Consumer Intention to Use an Artificial Intelligence-Powered Mobile Application for Weight Loss and Health ManagementTELEMEDICINE AND E-HEALTH2020
56Salgado, Tania; Tavares, Jorge; Oliveira, TiagoDrivers of Mobile Health Acceptance and Use From the Patient Perspective: Survey Study and Quantitative Model DevelopmentJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH2020
57Ndayizigamiye, Patrick; Kante, Macire; Shingwenyana, ShalatiAn adoption model of mHealth applications that promote physical activityCOGENT PSYCHOLOGY2020
58Hayotte, Meggy; Therouanne, Pierre; Gray, Laura; Corrion, Karine; d'Arripe-Longueville, FabienneThe French eHealth Acceptability Scale Using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 Model: Instrument Validation StudyJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH2020
59Magsamen-Conrad, Kate; Wang, Fang; Tetteh, Dinah; Lee, Yen-IUsing Technology Adoption Theory and a Lifespan Approach to Develop a Theoretical Framework for eHealth Literacy: Extending UTAUTHEALTH COMMUNICATION2020
60Alabdullah, Jafar H.; Van Lunen, Bonnie L.; Claiborne, Denise M.; Daniel, Susan J.; Yen, Cherng-Jyh; Gustin, Tina SApplication of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model to predict dental students' behavioral intention to use teledentistryJOURNAL OF DENTAL EDUCATION2020
61Senft, Nicole; Abrams, Judith; Katz, Anne; Barnes, Charity; Charbonneau, Deborah H.; Beebe-Dimmer, Jennifer L.; Zhang, Ke; Eaton, Tara; Heath, Elisabeth; Thompson, Hayley SeHealth Activity among African American and White Cancer Survivors: A New Application of TheoryHEALTH COMMUNICATION2020
62Zhou, Lulin; Owusu-Marfo, Joseph; Asante Antwi, Henry; Antwi, Maxwell Opuni; Xu, XinglongNurses' Readiness in the Adoption of Hospital Electronic Information Management Systems in Ghana: The Application of the Structural Equation Modeling and the UTAUT ModelSAGE OPEN2020
63Duarte, Paulo; Pinho, Jose CarlosA mixed methods UTAUT2-based approach to assess mobile health adoptionJOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH2019
64Hussain, Akram; Quaresma, Rui; Rahman, HabiburInvestigating factors influencing the physicians' adoption of electronic health record (EHR) in healthcare system of Bangladesh: An empirical studyINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT2019
65Balapour, Ali; Reychav, Iris; Sabherwal, Rajiv; Azuri, JosephMobile technology identity and self-efficacy: Implications for the adoption of clinically supported mobile health appsINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT2019
66Zhou, Min; Zhao, Lindu; Kong, Nan; Campy, Kathryn S.; Qu, Shujuan; Wang, SongFactors influencing behavior intentions to telehealth by Chinese elderly: An extended TAM modelINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS2019
67Alam, Mohammad Zahedul; Hu, Wang; Hoque, Md Rakibul; Kaium, Md AbdulAdoption intention and usage behavior of mHealth services in Bangladesh and China A cross-country analysisINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTHCARE MARKETING2019
68Garavand, Ali; Samadbeik, Mahnaz; Nadri, Hamed; Rahimi, Bahlol; Asadi, HeshmatollahEffective Factors in Adoption of Mobile Health Applications between Medical Sciences Students Using the UTAUT ModelMETHODS OF INFORMATION IN MEDICINE2019
69Al-Azzam, Majed Kamel; Alazzam, Malik Bader; al-Manasra, Majida KhalidMHealth for Decision Making Support: A Case Study of EHealth in the Public SectorINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED COMPUTER SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS2019
70Breil, Bernhard; Kremer, Lisanne; Hennemann, Severin; Apolinario-Hagen, JenniferAcceptance of mHealth Apps for Self-Management Among People with HypertensionGERMAN MEDICAL DATA SCIENCES: SHAPING CHANGE - CREATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR INNOVATIVE MEDICINE (GMDS 2019)2019
71Badran, Mona FarideHealth in Egypt: The demand-side perspective of implementing electronic health recordsTELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY2019
72Lo, Amber; Jenkins, Paul H.; Choobineh, JoobinPatient's Acceptance of IT-Assisted Self-Monitoring: A Multiple-Case StudyJOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS2019
73Zhou, Min; Qu, Shujuan; Zhao, Lindu; Campy, Kathryn S.; Wang, Song; Huang, WeiUnderstanding psychological determinants to promote the adoption of general practitioner by Chinese elderlyHEALTH POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY2019
74Alam, Mohammad Zahedul; Hu, Wang; Gani, Md OsmanAn Empirical Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Adoption of Mobile Health Services in Bangladesh Based on Extended UTAUT ModelPROCEEDINGS OF EIGHTEENTH WUHAN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON E-BUSINESS2019
75Mbelwa, Jimmy T.; Kimaro, Honest C.; Mussa, BernardAcceptability and Use of Mobile Health Applications in Health Information Systems: A Case of eIDSR and DHIS2 Touch Mobile Applications in TanzaniaINFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR DEVELOPMENT: STRENGTHENING SOUTHERN-DRIVEN COOPERATION AS A CATALYST FOR ICT4D, PT I2019
76Hoogenbosch, Bas; Postma, Jeroen; de Man-van Ginkel, Janneke M.; Tiemessen, Nicole A. M.; van Delden, Johannes J. M.; van Os-Medendorp, HarmiekeUse and the Users of a Patient Portal: Cross-Sectional StudyJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH2018
77van Houwelingen, Cornelis T. M.; Ettema, Roelof G. A.; Antonietti, Michelangelo G. E. F.; Kort, Helianthe S. MUnderstanding Older People's Readiness for Receiving Telehealth: Mixed-Method StudyJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH2018
78Quaosar, G. M. Azmal Ali; Hoque, Md. Rakibul; Bao, YukunInvestigating Factors Affecting Elderly's Intention to Use m-Health Services: An Empirical StudyTELEMEDICINE AND E-HEALTH2018
79Vassli, Lars Tore; Farshchian, Babak AAcceptance of Health-Related ICT among Elderly People Living in the Community: A Systematic Review of Qualitative EvidenceINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION2018
80Cilliers, Liezel; Viljoen, Kim Lee-Anne; Chinyamurindi, Willie TafadzwaA study on students' acceptance of mobile phone use to seek health information in South AfricaHEALTH INFORMATION MANAGEMENT JOURNAL2018
81Alalwan, Ali; Baabdullah, Abdullah M.; Rana, Nripendra P.; Dwivedi, Yogesh K.; Hudaib, Fadia; Shammout, AhmadExamining the Factors Affecting Behavioural Intention to Adopt Mobile Health in JordanCHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE DIGITAL ERA2018
82Al-Fadhli, Abdulrahman A.; Othman, Marini; Ali, Nor'ashikin; Al-Jamrh, Bassam AUnderstanding Health Professionals' Intention to Use Telehealth in Yemen: Using the DeLone and McLean IS Success ModelRECENT TRENDS IN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY2018
83Hoque, Rakibul; Sorwar, GolamUnderstanding factors influencing the adoption of mHealth by the elderly: An extension of the UTAUT modelINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS2017
84Koivumaki, Timo; Pekkarinen, Saara; Lappi, Minna; Vaisanen, Jere; Juntunen, Jouni; Pikkarainen, MinnaConsumer Adoption of Future MyData-Based Preventive eHealth Services: An Acceptance Model and Survey StudyJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH2017
85Adenuga, Kayode I.; Iahad, Noorminshah A.; Miskon, SurayaTowards reinforcing telemedicine adoption amongst clinicians in NigeriaINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS2017
86Tavares, Jorge; Oliveira, TiagoElectronic Health Record Portal Adoption: a cross country analysisBMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING2017
87Woldeyohannes, HAnna O.; Ngwenyama, Ojelanki KFactors Influencing Acceptance and Continued Use of mHealth AppsHCI IN BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT AND ORGANIZATIONS: INTERACTING WITH INFORMATION SYSTEMS, PT I2017
88McCanney, Chad; Kisekka, VictoriaAMCIS 2017 Influential Factors that Advance mHealth Application UsageAMCIS 2017 PROCEEDINGS2017
89Cimperman, Miha; Brencic, Maja Makovec; Trkman, PeterAnalyzing older users' home telehealth services acceptance behavior-applying an Extended UTAUT modelINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS2016
90Tavares, Jorge; Oliveira, TiagoElectronic Health Record Patient Portal Adoption by Health Care Consumers: An Acceptance Model and SurveyJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH2016
91Alaboudi, Abdulellah; Atkins, Anthony; Sharp, Bernadette; Balkhair, Ahmed; Alzahrani, Mohammed; Sunbul, TamaraBarriers and challenges in adopting Saudi telemedicine network: The perceptions of decision makers of healthcare facilities in Saudi ArabiaJOURNAL OF INFECTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH2016
92Alaboudi, Abdulellah; Atkins, Anthony; Sharpe, Bernadette; Alzahrani, Mohammed; Balkhair, Ahmed; Sunbul, TamaraPerceptions and Attitudes of Clinical Staff Towards Telemedicine Acceptance in Saudi Arabia2016 IEEE/ACS 13TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS (AICCSA)2016
93Techatraiphum, Vitarak; Tharnuraikun, Atchara; Krathu, Worarat; Chutimaskul, WichianTelemedicine Acceptance Framework for the Elderly in Thailand2016 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY CONVERGENCE (ICTC 2016): TOWARDS SMARTER HYPER-CONNECTED WORLD2016
94Vollmer, Anne-Maria; Prokosch, Hans-Ulrich; Evans, Scott; Kuttler, KathrynEvaluation of Acceptance of Nursing Information System in a German and American HospitalNURSING INFORMATICS 2016: EHEALTH FOR ALL: EVERY LEVEL COLLABORATION - FROM PROJECT TO REALIZATION2016
95Mengesha, Getachew Hailemariam; Garfield, Monica JA Contextualized IT adoption and Use Model for e-health: The Case of Telemedicine at Black Lion Teaching Hospital, EthiopiaAMCIS 2016 PROCEEDINGS2016
96Yuan, Shupei; Ma, Wenjuan; Kanthawala, Shaheen; Peng, WeiKeep Using My Health Apps: Discover Users' Perception of Health and Fitness Apps with the UTAUT2 ModelTELEMEDICINE AND E-HEALTH2015
97Magsamen-Conrad, Kate; Upadhyaya, Shrinkhala; Joa, Claire Youngnyo; Dowd, JohnBridging the divide: Using UTAUT to predict multigenerational tablet adoption practicesCOMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR2015
98Rho, Mi Jung; Kim, Hun Sung; Chung, Kyungyong; Choi, In YoungFactors influencing the acceptance of telemedicine for diabetes managementCLUSTER COMPUTING-THE JOURNAL OF NETWORKS SOFTWARE TOOLS AND APPLICATIONS2015
99Dino, Michael Joseph S.; de Guzman, Allan BUsing Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Predicting Behavioral Intention for Telehealth Use among Filipino ElderlyEDUCATIONAL GERONTOLOGY2015
100Pirnejad, Habibollah; Huq, Golenur; Basilkis, Jim; Maeder, AnthonyMonitoring falls in elderly people: Lessons from a community-based projectGLOBAL TELEHEALTH 20142014
101Cranen, Karlijn; Drossaert, Constance H. C.; Brinkman, Evelien S.; Braakman-Jansen, Annemarie L. M.; IJzerman, Maarten J.; Vollenbroek-Hutten, Miriam M. RAn exploration of chronic pain patients' perceptions of home telerehabilitation servicesHEALTH EXPECTATIONS2012
102Chang, I-Chiu; Hsu, Hui-MeiPredicting Medical Staff Intention to Use an Online Reporting System with Modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of TechnologyTELEMEDICINE AND E-HEALTH2012
103Whitten, Pamela; Holtz, Bree; Nguyen, LianhKeys to a successful and sustainable telemedicine programINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE2010
104Whitten, Pamela; Holtz, Bree; Meyer, Emily; Nazione, SamanthaTelehospice: reasons for slow adoption in home hospice careJOURNAL OF TELEMEDICINE AND TELECARE2009
105Beenkens, Fernao; Costa, Ana Cristina; Andriessen, ErikThe Adoption of Innovative ICT Services in Homecare Environments: Developing and Testing an Extended Technology Acceptance ModelEXPANDING THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY: ISSUES, APPLICATIONS, CASE STUDIES, PTS 1 AND 22007

Source(s): Appendix by authors

Appendix

Table A1

References

Abramo, G. and D'Angelo, C.A. (2011), “Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics”, Scientometrics, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 499-514, doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0352-7.

Aria, M. and Cuccurullo, C. (2017), “Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 959-975, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.

Asthana, S., Jones, R. and Sheaff, R. (2019), “Why does the NHS struggle to adopt eHealth innovations? A review of macro, meso and micro factors”, BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 19, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4790-x.

Bai, B., Nazir, S., Bai, Y. and Anees, A. (2021), “Security and provenance for Internet of Health Things: a systematic literature review”, Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, Vol. 33 No. 5, e2335, doi: 10.1002/smr.2335.

Ball, M.J. and Lillis, J. (2001), “E-health: transforming the physician/patient relationship”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1016/S1386-5056(00)00130-1.

Bastian, M., Heymann, S. and Jacomy, M. (2009), “Gephi: an open-source software for exploring and manipulating networks”, Proceedings, Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, California. doi: 10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13937.

Bender, M.S., Choi, J., Arai, S., Paul, S.M., Gonzalez, P. and Fukuoka, Y. (2014), “Digital technology ownership, usage and factors predicting downloading health apps among Caucasian, Filipino, Korean and Latino Americans: the digital link to health survey”, JMIR MHealth and UHealth, Vol. 2 No. 4, e3710, doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3710.

Blasioli, E. and Hassini, E. (2022), “E-Health technological ecosystems: advanced solutions to support informal caregivers and vulnerable populations during the COVID-19 outbreak”, Telemedicine and E-Health, Vol. 28, pp. 138-149, doi: 10.1089/tmj.2020.0522.

Blondel, V.D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R. and Lefebvre, E. (2008), “Fast unfolding of communities in large networks”, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, Vol. 2008 No. 10, P10008, doi: 10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008.

Boyack, K.W. and Klavans, R. (2010), “Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling and direct citation: which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 61 No. 12, pp. 2389-2404, doi: 10.1002/asi.21419.

Braam, R.R., Moed, H.F. and Van Raan, A.F.J. (1991), “Mapping of science by combined co‐citation and word analysis. I. Structural aspects”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 233-251, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199105)42:4<233::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-I.

Brin, S. and Page, L. (1998), “The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine”, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Vol. 30 Nos 1-7, pp. 107-117, doi: 10.1016/S0169-7552(98)00110-X.

Cabestany, J., Rodriguez-Martín, D., Pérez, C. and Sama, A. (2018), “Artificial intelligence contribution to eHealth application”, 2018 25th International Conference”, Proceedings, Mixed Design of Integrated Circuits and System (MIXDES), pp. 15-21.

Carboni, C., Wehrens, R., van der Veen, R. and de Bont, A. (2022), “Conceptualizing the digitalization of healthcare work: a metaphor-based critical interpretive synthesis”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 292, 114572, doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114572.

Chen, C., Ibekwe‐SanJuan, F. and Hou, J. (2010), “The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: a multiple‐perspective cocitation analysis”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 61 No. 7, pp. 1386-1409, doi: 10.1002/asi.21309.

Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 319-340, doi: 10.2307/249008.

De Grood, C., Raissi, A., Kwon, Y. and Santana, M.J. (2016), “Adoption of e-health technology by physicians: a scoping review”, Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, Vol. 9, pp. 335-344, doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S103881.

Dike, H.U., Zhou, Y., Deveerasetty, K.K. and Wu, Q. (2018), “Unsupervised learning based on artificial neural network: a review”, Proceedings, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Cyborg and Bionic Systems (CBS), pp. 322-327.

Duarte, P. and Pinho, J.C. (2019), “A mixed methods UTAUT2-based approach to assess mobile health adoption”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 102, pp. 140-150, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.022.

Fiala, D. and Tutoky, G. (2017), “PageRank-based prediction of award-winning researchers and the impact of citations”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1044-1068, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.09.008.

Gaddi, A.V. and Capello, F. (2014), “The debate over eHealth”, Gaddi, A., Capello, F. and Manca, M. (Eds), eHealth, Care and Quality of Life, Springer, Cham, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1007/978-88-470-5253-6.

Gaddi, A., Capello, F. and Manca, M., (Eds) (2013), eHealth, Care and Quality of Life, Springer Science and Business Media, Berlin, pp. 5253-5256, doi: 10.1007/978-88-470.

George, C., Whitehouse, D. and Duquenoy, P., (Eds) (2012), eHealth: Legal, Ethical and Governance Challenges, Springer Science and Business Media, New York. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22474-4.

Haikal, F., Tyas, N.K., Felcia, X.D., Oktavia, T. and Sundaram, D.S. (2022), “User acceptance analysis of the e-Health information system using UTAUT2 method”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, Vol. 100 No. 7, pp. 2193-2206.

Haluza, D. and Jungwirth, D. (2018), “ICT and the future of healthcare: aspects of pervasive health monitoring”, Informatics for Health and Social Care, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1080/17538157.2016.1255215.

Hamberger, M., Ikonomi, N., Schwab, J.D., Werle, S.D., Fürstberger, A., Kestler, A.M., Holderried, M., Kaisers, U.X., Steger, F.nd Kestler, H.A. (2022), “Interaction empowerment in mobile health: concepts, challenges and perspectives”, JMIR mHealth and uHealth, Vol. 10 No. 4, e32696, doi: 10.2196/32696.

Hossain, M.M. (2020), “Current status of global research on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a bibliometric analysis and knowledge mapping [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations”, F1000Research, Vol. 9 No. 374, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.23690.1.

Impedovo, D. and Pirlo, G. (2019), “Dynamic handwriting analysis for the assessment of neurodegenerative diseases: a pattern recognition perspective”, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 12, pp. 209-220, doi: 10.1109/RBME.2018.2840679.

Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S. and Bastian, M. (2014), “ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 9 No. 6, e98679, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098679.

Kim, E.D., Kuan, K.K., Vaghasiya, M.R., Penm, J., Gunja, N., El Amrani, R. and Poon, S.K. (2022), “Passive resistance to health information technology implementation: the case of electronic medication management system”, Behaviour and Information Technology, pp. 1-22, doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2022.2117081.

Klöcker, P. (2015), Resistance Behavior to National eHealth Implementation Programs, Springer International Publishing, Cham.

Kontos, E., Blake, K.D., Chou, W.-Y.S. and Prestin, A. (2014), “Predictors of eHealth usage: insights on the digital divide from the health information national trends survey 2012”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 16 No. 7, e172, doi: 10.2196/jmir.3117.

Krupinski, E.A. and Bernard, J. (2014), “Standards and guidelines in telemedicine and telehealth”, Healthcare, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 74-93, doi: 10.3390/healthcare2010074.

Lee, D. and Yoon, S.N. (2021), “Application of artificial intelligence-based technologies in the healthcare industry: opportunities and challenges”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18 No. 1, 271, doi: 10.3390/ijerph18010271.

Linnenluecke, M.K., Marrone, M. and Singh, A.K. (2020), “Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 175-194, doi: 10.1177/0312896219877678.

Merigó, J.M. and Yang, J.-B. (2017), “A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science”, Omega, Vol. 73, pp. 37-48, doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.004.

Moed, H.F. (2006), Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Springer Science and Business Media, Belin.

Mongeon, P. and Paul-Hus, A. (2016), “The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 106, pp. 213-228, doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.

Moucheraud, C., Schwitters, A., Boudreaux, C., Giles, D., Kilmarx, P.H., Ntolo, N., Bangani, Z., St Louis, M.E. and Bossert, T.J. (2017), “Sustainability of health information systems: a three-country qualitative study in southern Africa”, BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1971-8.

Mutale, W., Chintu, N., Amoroso, C., Awoonor-Williams, K., Phillips, J., Baynes, C., Michel, C., Taylor, A. and Sherr, K. (2013), “Improving health information systems for decision making across five sub-Saharan African countries: implementation strategies from the African Health Initiative”, BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-S2-S9.

Mutenda, N., Bukowski, A., Nitschke, A.-M., Nakanyala, T., Hamunime, N., Mekonen, T., Tjituka, F., Mazibuko, G., Mwinga, S. and Mabirizi, D. (2016), “Assessment of the World Health Organization's HIV drug resistance early warning indicators in main and decentralized outreach antiretroviral therapy sites in Namibia”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 11 No. 12, e0166649, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166649.

Naditz, A. (2008), “Telemedicine at the VA: VistA, MyHealtheVet and other VA programs”, Telemedicine and E-Health, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 330-332, doi: 10.1089/tmj.2008.9973.

Nazi, K.M., Hogan, T.P., McInnes, D.K., Woods, S.S. and Graham, G. (2013), “Evaluating patient access to electronic health records: results from a survey of veterans”, Medical Care, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. S52-S56, doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827808db.

Nicol, E., Bradshaw, D., Uwimana-Nicol, J. and Dudley, L. (2017), “Perceptions about data-informed decisions: an assessment of information-use in high HIV-prevalence settings in South Africa”, BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 25-38, doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2641-1.

Nijland, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, J.E.W.C., Kelders, S.M., Brandenburg, B.J. and Seydel, E.R. (2011), “Factors influencing the use of a Web-based application for supporting the self-care of patients with type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, e1603, doi: 10.2196/jmir.1603.

Nimdet, K. and Ngorsuraches, S. (2015), “Willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year for life-saving treatments in Thailand”, BMJ Open, Vol. 5 No. 10, e008123, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008123.

Niznik, J.D., He, H. and Kane-Gill, S.L. (2018), “Impact of clinical pharmacist services delivered via telemedicine in the outpatient or ambulatory care setting: a systematic review”, Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 707-717, doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2017.10.011.

Noah, B., Keller, M.S., Mosadeghi, S., Stein, L., Johl, S., Delshad, S., Tashjian, V.C., Lew, D., Kwan, J.T. and Jusufagic, A. (2018), “Impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials”, NPJ Digital Medicine, Vol. 1 No. 1, 20172, doi: 10.1038/s41746-017-0002-4.

Norman, S. (2006), “The use of telemedicine in psychiatry”, Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 771-777, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2006.01033.x.

Ohannessian, R., Duong, T.A. and Odone, A. (2020), “Global telemedicine implementation and integration within health systems to fight the COVID-19 pandemic: a call to action”, JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, Vol. 6 No. 2, e18810, doi: 10.2196/18810.

Pappot, N., Taarnhøj, G.A. and Pappot, H. (2020), “Telemedicine and e-Health solutions for COVID-19: patients' perspective”, Telemedicine Journal and E-Health: The Official Journal of the American Telemedicine Association, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 847-849, doi: 10.1089/tmj.2020.0099.

Park, Y.T. (2016), “Emerging new era of mobile health technologies”, Healthcare Informatics Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 253-254, doi: 10.4258/hir.2016.22.4.253.

Persson, O., Danell, R. and Schneider, J.W. (2009), “How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis”, in Danell, R., Larsen, B. and Schneider, J. (Eds), Celebrating Scholarly Communication Studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at His 60th Birthday, ISSI, Lund, pp. 9-24.

Pilkington, A. and Meredith, J. (2009), “The evolution of the intellectual structure of operations management—1980-2006: a citation/co-citation analysis”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 185-202, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2008.08.001.

Porter, M.E. and Heppelmann, J.E. (2017), “Why every organization needs an augmented reality strategy”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 46-57, November–December.

Razmak, J., Bélanger, C.H. and Farhan, W. (2018), “Development of a techno-humanist model for e-health adoption of innovative technology”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 120, pp. 62-76, doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.09.022.

Rogers, E.M. (2010), Diffusion of Innovations, Simon & Schuster, Hohenheim.

Rouidi, M., Elouadi, A. and Hamdoune, A. (2022), “Acceptance and use of telemedicine technology by health professionals: development of a conceptual model”, Digital Health, Vol. 8, 20552076221081693, doi: 10.1177/20552076221081693.

Sanders, C., Rogers, A., Bowen, R., Bower, P., Hirani, S., Cartwright, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Knapp, M., Barlow, J. and Hendy, J. (2012), “Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: a qualitative study”, BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 12, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-220.

Scheibner, J., Sleigh, J., Ienca, M. and Vayena, E. (2021), “Benefits, challenges and contributors to success for national eHealth systems implementation: a scoping review”, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 2039-2049, doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocab096.

Shaikh, A.K., Alhashmi, S.M., Khalique, N., Khedr, A.M., Raahemifar, K. and Bukhari, S. (2023), “Bibliometric analysis on the adoption of artificial intelligence applications in the e-health sector”, Digital Health, Vol. 9, doi: 10.1177/20552076221149296.

Sharp, I.R., Kobak, K.A. and Osman, D.A. (2011), “The use of videoconferencing with patients with psychosis: a review of the literature”, Annals of General Psychiatry, Vol. 10 No. 1, 14, doi: 10.1186/1744-859X-10-14.

Shukla, A.K., Muhuri, P.K. and Abraham, A. (2020), “A bibliometric analysis and cutting-edge overview on fuzzy techniques in Big Data”, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 92, 103625, doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103625.

Small, H. (1973), “Co‐citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 265-269, doi: 10.1002/asi.4630240406.

Small, H. (1997), “Update on science mapping: creating large document spaces”, Scientometrics, Vol. 38, pp. 275-293, doi: 10.1007/BF02457414.

Sun, Y., Wang, N., Guo, X. and Peng, Z. (2013), “Understanding the acceptance of mobile health services: a comparison and integration of alternative models”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, 183.

Swinkels, I.C.S., Huygens, M.W.J., Schoenmakers, T.M., Oude Nijeweme-D’Hollosy, W., Van Velsen, L., Vermeulen, J., Schoone-Harmsen, M., Jansen, Y., van Schayck, O., Friele, R. and de Witte, L. (2018), “Lessons learned from a living lab on the broad adoption of eHealth in primary health care”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, p. e83, doi: 10.2196/jmir.9110.

Tam, C., Santos, D. and Oliveira, T. (2020), “Exploring the influential factors of continuance intention to use mobile apps: extending the expectation confirmation model”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 22, pp. 243-257, doi: 10.1007/s10796-018-9864-5.

Tamilmani, K., Rana, N.P., Wamba, S.F. and Dwivedi, R. (2021), “The extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2): a systematic literature review and theory evaluation”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 57, 102269, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102269.

Thuemmler, C. and Bai, C., (Eds) (2017), Health 4.0: How Virtualization and Big Data Are Revolutionizing Healthcare, Springer International Publishing, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47617-9.

Torous, J. and Keshavan, M. (2020), “COVID-19, mobile health and serious mental illness”, Schizophrenia Research, Vol. 218, p. 36, doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2020.04.013.

Tsai, J. and Rosenheck, R.A. (2012), “Use of the internet and an online personal health record system by US veterans: comparison of Veterans Affairs mental health service users and other veterans nationally”, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1089-1094, doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000971.

Tuckson, R.V., Edmunds, M. and Hodgkins, M.L. (2017), “Telehealth”, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 377 No. 16, pp. 1585-1592, doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1503323.

Van Engelen, J.E. and Hoos, H.H. (2020), “A survey on semi-supervised learning”, Machine Learning, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 373-440, doi: 10.1007/s10994-019-05855-6.

Van Velsen, L., Wentzel, J. and Van Gemert-Pijnen, J.E. (2013), “Designing eHealth that matters via a multidisciplinary requirements development approach”, JMIR Research Protocols, Vol. 2 No. 1, e2547, doi: 10.2196/resprot.2547.

Veikkolainen, P., Tuovinen, T., Jarva, E., Tuomikoski, A.M., Männistö, M., Pääkkönen, J., Pihlajasalog, T. and Reponen, J. (2023), “eHealth competence building for future doctors and nurses—attitudes and capabilities”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 169, 104912, doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104912.

Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.

Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000), “Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 115-139, doi: 10.2307/3250981.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478, doi: 10.2307/30036540.

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L. and Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 157-178, doi: 10.2307/41410412.

Vreugdenhil, M.M.T., Ranke, S., de Man, Y., Haan, M.M. and Kool, R.B. (2019), “Patient and health care provider experiences with a recently introduced patient portal in an academic hospital in The Netherlands: mixed methods study”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 21 No. 8, e13743, doi: 10.2196/13743.

Wade-Vuturo, A.E., Mayberry, L.S. and Osborn, C.Y. (2013), “Secure messaging and diabetes management: experiences and perspectives of patient portal users”, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 519-525, doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001253.

Wiljer, D., Urowitz, S., Apatu, E., DeLenardo, C., Eysenbach, G., Harth, T., Pai, H. and Leonard, K. (2008), “Patient accessible electronic health records: exploring recommendations for successful implementation strategies”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, e1061, doi: 10.2196/jmir.1061.

Williams, M.D., Rana, N.P. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2015), “The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 443-488, doi: 10.1108/JEIM-09-2014-0088.

Wills, M.J., El-Gayar, O.F. and Bennett, D. (2008), “Examining healthcare professionals' acceptance of electronic medical records using UTAUT”, Issues in Information Systems, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 396-401.

Wilson, E.V. and Lankton, N.K. (2004), “Modeling patients' acceptance of provider-delivered e-health”, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 241-248, doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1475.

World Health Organization (1998), “Group consultation on health telematics: a health telematics policy in support of WHO’s health-for-all strategy for global health development: Report of the WHO group consultation on health telematics”, Report [WHO/DGO/98.1], WHO, Geneva, pp. 11-16, December 1997, available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/63857?locale=ar

World Health Organization (2005), “Fifty-eighth world health assembly, Geneva, 16-25 may 2005: resolutions and decisions: annex”, Executive Summary, [WHA58/2005/REC/1], WHO, Geneva, May 2005.

Wouters, P. (2006), “Aux origines de la scientométrie: La naissance du Science Citation Index”, Actes de La Recherche En Sciences Sociales, Vol. 164 No. 4, pp. 11-22, doi: 10.3917/arss.164.0011.

Wu, J. and Du, H. (2012), “Toward a better understanding of behavioral intention and system usage constructs”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 680-698, doi: 10.1057/ejis.2012.15.

Yamin, C.K., Emani, S., Williams, D.H., Lipsitz, S.R., Karson, A.S., Wald, J.S. and Bates, D.W. (2011), “The digital divide in adoption and use of a personal health record”, Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 171 No. 6, pp. 568-574, doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.34.

Yellowlees, P., Nakagawa, K., Pakyurek, M., Hanson, A., Elder, J. and Kales, H.C. (2020), “Rapid conversion of an outpatient psychiatric clinic to a 100% virtual telepsychiatry clinic in response to COVID-19”, Psychiatric Services, Vol. 71 No. 7, pp. 749-752, doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000230.

Yousef, C.C., Thomas, A., Alenazi, A.O., Elgadi, S., Abu Esba, L.C., AlAzmi, A., Alhameed, A.F., Hattan, A., Almekhloof, S. and AlShammary, M.A. (2020), “Adoption of a personal health record in the digital age: cross-sectional study”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 22 No. 10, e22913, doi: 10.2196/22913.

Yousef, C.C., Salgado, T.M., Farooq, A., Burnett, K., McClelland, L.E., Thomas, A., Alenazi, A.O., Esba, L.C.A., AlAzmi, A. and Alhameed, A.F. (2021), “Predicting patients' intention to use a personal health record using an adapted unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model: secondary data analysis”, JMIR Medical Informatics, Vol. 9 No. 8, e30214, doi: 10.2196/30214.

Yu, D. and He, X. (2020), “A bibliometric study for DEA applied to energy efficiency: trends and future challenges”, Applied Energy, Vol. 268, 115048, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115048.

Yu, D., Xu, Z., Pedrycz, W. and Wang, W. (2017), “Information Sciences 1968-2016: a retrospective analysis with text mining and bibliometric”, Information Sciences, Vol. 418, pp. 619-634, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2017.08.031.

Yuan, S., Ma, W., Kanthawala, S. and Peng, W. (2015), “Keep using my health apps: discover users' perception of health and fitness apps with the UTAUT2 model”, Telemedicine and E-Health, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 735-741, doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0148.

Zhang, J., Yu, Q., Zheng, F., Long, C., Lu, Z. and Duan, Z. (2016), “Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: a case study of patient adherence research”, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 967-972, doi: 10.1002/asi.23437.

Zhao, Y., Ni, Q. and Zhou, R. (2018), “What factors influence the mobile health service adoption? A meta-analysis and the moderating role of age”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 43, pp. 342-350, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.08.006.

Zhong, X., Park, J., Liang, M., Shi, F., Budd, P.R., Sprague, J.L. and Dewar, M.A. (2020), “Characteristics of patients using different patient portal functions and the impact on primary care service utilization and appointment adherence: retrospective observational study”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, e14410, doi: 10.2196/14410.

Zhu, J. and Liu, W. (2020), “A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers”, Scientometrics, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp. 321-335, doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions that made this work more effective and robust.

Corresponding author

Nicola Cobelli is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: nicola.cobelli@univr.it

About the authors

Nicola Cobelli (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of Management at the University of Verona (Italy). He is a Member of the Italian Society of Management, the Italian Academy of Business Administration, and the Editorial Committee of Sinergie—Italian Journal of Management. His research areas are Enterprise 4.0, retail management and servitization and healthcare management. His main publications are in international journals, such as the Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, the International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, the International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, and Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

Emanuele Blasioli is currently a PhD candidate in Management Science at McMaster University, DeGroote School of Business (Canada). His research interests include application of Management Science and Operations Research in health care, as well as eHealth and Clinical Psychology. His work has been published in international journals such as Psychiatric Quarterly, Telemedicine and e-Health, and Operations Research Forum. He has also authored the Handbook of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Volume 1 (American Psychological Association).

Related articles