How Do the Determinants of Collaborative Consumption Influence Its Use in Healthcare? A Managerial Perspective

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Economics, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy

2 Department of Economics, Management and Business Law, University of Bari, Bari, Italy

Abstract

Background 
The primary objective of this investigation is to scrutinize the underlying motivations that may prompt those responsible for health to adopt models of collaborative consumption (CC) as business innovation. Furthermore, the study seeks to assess the congruence of determinants influencing the intention to utilize CC in healthcare, comparing perspectives between responsible for health and digital health consumers.
 
Methods 
Two studies based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) have been conducted. Study 1 uses a qualitative approach to analyze the determinants in use CC in healthcare of responsible for health of the Italian’s National Health Service. Study 2 uses a quantitative approach to analyze a sample of healthcare consumers, their salient beliefs, digital health literacy, and perceived own health status in determining the intention to use CC in healthcare.
 
Results 
Responsible for health recognize both the benefits, like improved efficiency, and the drawbacks, such as digital illiteracy and privacy concerns. Consumer data reveals that attitudes, social norms, perceived control, and digital literacy significantly influence the intention to use CC in healthcare, with education and age being moderating factors, whereas income is not impactful.
 
Conclusion 
The research ends with a discussion of these findings and their strategic implications for managing decision support systems in healthcare. The research highlights the need for innovation-based strategies in the health system, proposing a new socio-technical health domain to improve management through a participatory approach. The approach emphasizes business innovation, service quality, and cost-efficiency. Finally, the research addresses the gaps highlighted in CC in healthcare adoption, underscoring public-private collaboration and practical strategies for sustainable success.

Keywords

References

  1. Kaplan AM, Haenlein M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus Horiz. 2010;53(1):59-68. doi:1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
  2. Wang C, Zhang P. The evolution of social commerce: the people, management, technology, and information dimensions. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2012;31(1):105-127. doi:17705/1cais.03105
  3. Agarwal N, Steinmetz R. Sharing economy: a systematic literature review. Int J Innov Technol Manag. 2019;16(6):1930002. doi:1142/s0219877019300027
  4. Chatterjee S, Chaudhuri R, Vrontis D, Mahto R. Bright and dark sides of adopting a platform‐based sharing economy business model. R&D Management. 2023. doi:1111/radm.12650
  5. Galbreth MR, Ghosh B, Shor M. Social sharing of information goods: implications for pricing and profits. Mark Sci. 2012;31(4):603-620. doi:1287/mksc.1120.0706
  6. Belk R. You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption online. J Bus Res. 2014;67(8):1595-1600. doi:1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001
  7. Benoit S, Baker TL, Bolton RN, Gruber T, Kandampully J. A triadic framework for collaborative consumption (CC): motives, activities and resources & capabilities of actors. J Bus Res. 2017;79:219-227. doi:1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.004
  8. Hamari J, Sjöklint M, Ukkonen A. The sharing economy: why people participate in collaborative consumption. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2016;67(9):2047-2059. doi:1002/asi.23552
  9. Bardhi F, Eckhardt GM. Access-based consumption: the case of car sharing. J Consum Res. 2012;39(4):881-898. doi:1086/666376
  10. Young W, Hwang K, McDonald S, Oates CJ. Sustainable consumption: green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustain Dev. 2010;18(1):20-31. doi:1002/sd.394
  11. Ozanne LK, Ballantine PW. Sharing as a form of anti‐consumption? An examination of toy library users. J Consum Behav. 2010;9(6):485-498. doi:1002/cb.334
  12. Zervas G, Proserpio D, Byers JW. The rise of the sharing economy: estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. J Mark Res. 2017;54(5):687-705. doi:1509/jmr.15.0204
  13. Perelygina M, Kucukusta D, Law R. Digital business model configurations in the travel industry. Tour Manag. 2022;88:104408. doi:1016/j.tourman.2021.104408
  14. Kumar V, Lahiri A, Dogan OB. A strategic framework for a profitable business model in the sharing economy. Ind Mark Manag. 2018;69:147-160. doi:1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.021
  15. Chi T, Adesanya O, Liu H, Anderson R, Zhao Z. Renting than buying apparel: US consumer collaborative consumption for sustainability. Sustainability. 2023;15(6):4926. doi:3390/su15064926
  16. Klimek P, Ledebur K, Gyimesi M, Ostermann H, Thurner S. Forecasting the early impact of COVID-19 on physician supply in EU countries. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2024;13:7555. doi:34172/ijhpm.2024.7555
  17. Schiavone F, Sabetta A, Leone D, Chiao B. Industrial convergence and industrial crisis: a situational analysis about precision medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. IEEE Trans Eng Manag. 2023;70(4):1456-1467. doi:1109/tem.2021.3093448
  18. Hodgins M, van Leeuwen D, Braithwaite J, et al. The COVID-19 system shock framework: capturing health system innovation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(10):2155-2165. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.130
  19. Gong C, Ribiere V. Developing a unified definition of digital transformation. Technovation. 2021;102:102217. doi:1016/j.technovation.2020.102217
  20. Dente MG, Riccardo F, Bejaoui M, Fabiani M, Lausevic D, Declich S. Contribution of regional networks to the control of cross-border public health threats: EpiSouth in the Mediterranean region and southeast Europe. Health Secur. 2017;15(4):418-431. doi:1089/hs.2016.0081
  21. Ekmekci PE. Patients' rights in cross-border healthcare (Directive 2011/24/EU) and how it applies to Turkey as a negotiating candidate country. Eur J Health Law. 2017;24(4):432-444. doi:1163/15718093-12341423
  22. European Commission. Study on Enhancing implementation of the Cross-Border Healthcare Directive 2011/24/EU to Ensure Patient Rights in the EU. Final Report. In: Directorate General for Health and Food Safety DBHs, medical products & innovation. Unit B2: Cross-border healthcare and tobacco control, ed. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2022.
  23. Moonian O, Cheerkoot-Jalim S, Nagowah SD, Khedo KK, Doomun R, Cadersaib Z. HCRBAC–an access control system for collaborative context-aware healthcare services in Mauritius. J Health Informatics Dev Ctries. 2008;2(2):10-21.
  24. Luri Minami A, Ramos C, Bruscato Bortoluzzo A. Sharing economy versus collaborative consumption: what drives consumers in the new forms of exchange? J Bus Res. 2021;128:124-137. doi:1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.035
  25. Lee D. Effects of key value co-creation elements in the healthcare system: focusing on technology applications. Serv Bus. 2019;13(2):389-417. doi:1007/s11628-018-00388-9
  26. Chen T, Ou Yang S, Leo C. The beginning of value co-creation: understanding dynamics, efforts and betterment. J Serv Theory Pract. 2017;27(6):1145-1166. doi:1108/jstp-12-2015-0257
  27. Carrubbo L, Bruni R, Cavacece Y, Moretta Tartaglione A. Service System Platforms to Improve Value Co-Creation: Insights for Translational Medicine. Italy, Napoli; 2015.
  28. van Kessel R, Wong BL, Clemens T, Brand H. Digital health literacy as a super determinant of health: More than simply the sum of its parts. Internet Interv. 2022;27:100500. doi:1016/j.invent.2022.100500
  29. Gheorghe IR, Purcărea VL, Gheorghe CM. Flip a coin: collaborative consumption or sharing economy in ophthalmology services. Rom J Ophthalmol. 2021;65(4):335-338. doi:22336/rjo.2021.68
  30. Stevens JL, Johnson CM, Gleim MR. Why own when you can access? Motivations for engaging in collaborative consumption. J Mark Theory Pract. 2023;31(1):1-17. doi:1080/10696679.2021.1985939
  31. Barnes SJ, Mattsson J. Understanding collaborative consumption: test of a theoretical model. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2017;118:281-292. doi:1016/j.techfore.2017.02.029
  32. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179-211. doi:1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
  33. Ashaduzzaman M, Jebarajakirthy C, Weaven SK, Maseeh HI, Das M, Pentecost R. Predicting collaborative consumption behaviour: a meta-analytic path analysis on the theory of planned behaviour. Eur J Mark. 2022;56(4):968-1013. doi:1108/ejm-07-2020-0563
  34. Lindblom A, Lindblom T. Applying the extended theory of planned behavior to predict collaborative consumption intentions. In: Smedlund A, Lindblom A, Mitronen L, eds. Collaborative Value Co-creation in the Platform Economy. Singapore: Springer; 2018:167-182. doi:1007/978-981-10-8956-5_9
  35. Botsman R, Rogers R. What's Mine is Yours: How Collaborative Consumption is Changing the Way We Live. HarperCollins Publishers; 2011.
  36. Jin XL, Zhou Z, Tian Y. A configurational analysis of the causes of consumer indirect misbehaviors in access-based consumption. J Bus Ethics. 2022;175(1):135-166. doi:1007/s10551-020-04637-8
  37. Perren R, Stewart K, Satornino CB. Puritan peers or egoistic entrepreneurs? Moral decay in lateral exchange markets. J Consum Mark. 2019;36(3):366-378. doi:1108/jcm-03-2018-2625
  38. Eysenbach G. What is e-health? J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(2):E20. doi:2196/jmir.3.2.e20
  39. Pang Z, Yang G, Khedri R, Zhang YT. Introduction to the special section: convergence of automation technology, biomedical engineering, and health informatics toward the healthcare 4.0. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2018;11:249-259. doi:1109/rbme.2018.2848518
  40. Leone D, Schiavone F, Appio FP, Chiao B. How does artificial intelligence enable and enhance value co-creation in industrial markets? An exploratory case study in the healthcare ecosystem. J Bus Res. 2021;129:849-859. doi:1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.008
  41. Boni AA. Innovation Challenges and Opportunities in Biopharma, MedTech, Digital Medicine, and Their Emerging Convergence: User & Patient Centric Applications in the “Pharma 3.0 Business Model Paradigm.” J Commer Biotechnol. 2018;24(1):39-47. doi:5912/jcb852
  42. Grönroos C. Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co‐creates? Eur Bus Rev. 2008;20(4):298-314. doi:1108/09555340810886585
  43. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2013.
  44. Lindenberg S. Intrinsic motivation in a new light. Kyklos. 2001;54(2‐3):317-342.
  45. Hosany S, Prayag G. Patterns of tourists' emotional responses, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. J Bus Res. 2013;66(6):730-737. doi:1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.011
  46. Shen J. Social comparison, social presence, and enjoyment in the acceptance of social shopping websites. J Electron Commer Res. 2012;13(3):198-212.
  47. Cheung CM, Chiu PY, Lee MK. Online social networks: why do students use Facebook? Comput Human Behav. 2011;27(4):1337-1343. doi:1016/j.chb.2010.07.028
  48. Raghunathan R, Corfman K. Is happiness shared doubled and sadness shared halved? Social influence on enjoyment of hedonic experiences. J Mark Res. 2006;43(3):386-394. doi:1509/jmkr.43.3.386
  49. John NA. The social logics of sharing. Commun Rev. 2013;16(3):113-131. doi:1080/10714421.2013.807119
  50. Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook “friends:” social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2007;12(4):1143-1168. doi:1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
  51. Prothero A, Dobscha S, Freund J, et al. Sustainable consumption: opportunities for consumer research and public policy. J Public Policy Mark. 2011;30(1):31-38. doi:1509/jppm.30.1.31
  52. May A, Ross T, Grebert J, Segarra G. User reaction to car share and lift share within a transport ‘marketplace’. IET Intell Transp Syst. 2008;2(1):47-60. doi:1049/iet-its:20070026
  53. Tussyadiah IP. An exploratory study on drivers and deterrents of collaborative consumption in travel. In: Tussyadiah I, Inversini A, eds. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015. Cham: Springer; 2015:817-830. doi:1007/978-3-319-14343-9_59
  54. Roos D, Hahn R. Understanding collaborative consumption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior with value-based personal norms. J Bus Ethics. 2019;158(3):679-697. doi:1007/s10551-017-3675-3
  55. Bhalla S. Motivations and constraints of collaborative consumption, testing the mediating role of attitude and nature of trust. Vision. 2023;27(2):189-201. doi:1177/0972262921989127
  56. Luchs MG, Naylor RW, Rose RL, et al. Toward a sustainable marketplace: expanding options and benefits for consumers. J Res Consum. 2011;1(19):1-12.
  57. Hars A, Ou S. Working for free? Motivations for participating in open-source projects. Int J Electron Commer. 2002;6(3):25-39.
  58. Bock GW, Zmud RW, Kim YG, Lee JN. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Q. 2005;29(1):87-111. doi:2307/25148669
  59. Kankanhalli A, Tan BC, Wei KK. Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS Q. 2005;29(1):113-143. doi:2307/25148670
  60. Bucher E, Fieseler C, Lutz C. What's mine is yours (for a nominal fee)–exploring the spectrum of utilitarian to altruistic motives for internet-mediated sharing. Comput Human Behav. 2016;62:316-326. doi:1016/j.chb.2016.04.002
  61. Kim S, Park H. Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s-commerce) on consumers’ trust and trust performance. Int J Inf Manage. 2013;33(2):318-332. doi:1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.11.006
  62. Wasko MM, Faraj S. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Q. 2005;29(1):35-57. doi:2307/25148667
  63. Yang HL, Lai CY. Motivations of Wikipedia content contributors. Comput Human Behav. 2010;26(6):1377-1383. doi:1016/j.chb.2010.04.011
  64. See-To EW, Ho KK. Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network sites: the role of electronic word-of-mouth and trust–a theoretical analysis. Comput Human Behav. 2014;31:182-189. doi:1016/j.chb.2013.10.013
  65. Wang JC, Chang CH. How online social ties and product-related risks influence purchase intentions: a Facebook experiment. Electron Commer Res Appl. 2013;12(5):337-346. doi:1016/j.elerap.2013.03.003
  66. Ng KY. The moderating role of trust and the theory of reasoned action. J Knowl Manag. 2020;24(6):1221-1240. doi:1108/jkm-01-2020-0071
  67. Eastman JK, Goldsmith RE, Flynn LR. Status consumption in consumer behavior: scale development and validation. J Mark Theory Pract. 1999;7(3):41-52. doi:1080/10696679.1999.11501839
  68. Sahin O, Nasir S. The effects of status consumption and conspicuous consumption on perceived symbolic status. J Mark Theory Pract. 2022;30(1):68-85. doi:1080/10696679.2021.1888649
  69. Hofmann E, Hartl B, Penz E. Power versus trust–what matters more in collaborative consumption? J Serv Mark. 2017;31(6):589-603. doi:1108/jsm-09-2015-0279
  70. Langkamp Bolton D, Lane MD. Individual entrepreneurial orientation: development of a measurement instrument. Education + Training. 2012;54(2-3):219-233. doi:1108/00400911211210314
  71. Lawson SJ, Gleim MR, Perren R, Hwang J. Freedom from ownership: an exploration of access-based consumption. J Bus Res. 2016;69(8):2615-2623. doi:1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.021
  72. Sirgy MJ, Grewal D, Mangleburg TF, et al. Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. J Acad Mark Sci. 1997;25(3):229-241. doi:1177/0092070397253004
  73. Kressmann F, Sirgy MJ, Herrmann A, Huber F, Huber S, Lee DJ. Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. J Bus Res. 2006;59(9):955-964. doi:1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.001
  74. Melnyk V, van Herpen E, van Trijp JC. The influence of social norms in consumer decision making: a meta-analysis. Adv Consum Res. 2010;37(1):463-464.
  75. Barbosa B, Fonseca I. A phenomenological approach to the collaborative consumer. J Consum Mark. 2019;36(6):705-714. doi:1108/jcm-11-2017-2468
  76. Hsu CL, Lin JC. Acceptance of blog usage: the roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Inf Manage. 2008;45(1):65-74. doi:1016/j.im.2007.11.001
  77. Sohn D. Disentangling the effects of social network density on electronic word-of-mouth (eWom) intention. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2009;14(2):352-367. doi:1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01444.x
  78. Akter S, Babu MM, Hossain MA, Hani U. Value co-creation on a shared healthcare platform: impact on service innovation, perceived value and patient welfare. J Bus Res. 2022;140:95-106. doi:1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.077
  79. Ariani A, Koesoema AP, Soegijoko S. Innovative healthcare applications of ICT for developing countries. In: Qudrat-Ullah H, Tsasis P, eds. Innovative Healthcare Systems for the 21st Century. Cham: Springer; 2017:15-70. doi:1007/978-3-319-55774-8_2
  80. Sharma S, Conduit J, Rao Hill S. Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being outcomes from co-creation roles: a study of vulnerable customers. J Serv Mark. 2017;31(4/5):397-411. doi:1108/jsm-06-2016-0236
  81. Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B. Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J. 2008;204(6):291-295. doi:1038/bdj.2008.192
  82. Opdenakker RJ. Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2006;7(4):11.
  83. Baba-Ari F, Eboreime EA, Hossain M. Conditional cash transfers for maternal health interventions: factors influencing uptake in North-Central Nigeria. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(10):934-942. doi:15171/ijhpm.2018.56
  84. Blanchet K, Sanon VP, Sarrassat S, Somé AS. Realistic evaluation of the Integrated e-Diagnostic Approach (IeDA) for the management of childhood illnesses at primary health facilities in Burkina Faso. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:6073. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.6073
  85. Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Handbook of Health Research Methods: Investigation, Measurement and Analysis. United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill Education; 2005.
  86. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1189-1208.
  87. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1996.
  88. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. Psychology Press; 2011.
  89. Eagly AH. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers; 1993.
  90. Abdulai AF, Tiffere AH, Adam F, Kabanunye MM. COVID-19 information-related digital literacy among online health consumers in a low-income country. Int J Med Inform. 2021;145:104322. doi:1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104322
  91. Ezeudoka BC, Fan M. Determinants of behavioral intentions to use an E-Pharmacy service: insights from TAM theory and the moderating influence of technological literacy. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2024;20(7):605-617. doi:1016/j.sapharm.2024.03.007
  92. Gravili G, Benvenuto M, Avram A, Viola C. The influence of the digital divide on big data generation within supply chain management. Int J Logist Manag. 2018;29(2):592-628. doi:1108/ijlm-06-2017-0175
  93. Mackert M, Mabry-Flynn A, Champlin S, Donovan EE, Pounders K. Health literacy and health information technology adoption: the potential for a new digital divide. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(10):e264. doi:2196/jmir.6349
  94. Li Y, Ma Y, Wang Y, Hong W. The adoption of smart health services by older adults in retirement communities: analysis with the technology acceptance model (TAM). Univ Access Inf Soc. 2024. doi:1007/s10209-024-01125-y
  95. White Baker E, Al‐Gahtani SS, Hubona GS. The effects of gender and age on new technology implementation in a developing country. Information Technology & People. 2007;20(4):352-375. doi:1108/09593840710839798
  96. Ajzen I. Understanding Attitudes and Predictiing Social Behavior. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.
  97. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1977.
  98. Kasilingam D, Krishna R. Understanding the adoption and willingness to pay for internet of things services. Int J Consum Stud. 2022;46(1):102-131. doi:1111/ijcs.12648
  99. Prete MI, Piper L, Rizzo C, et al. Determinants of Southern Italian households’ intention to adopt energy efficiency measures in residential buildings. J Clean Prod. 2017;153:83-91. doi:1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.157
  100. Rizzo C, Piper L, Irene Prete M, Pino G, Guido G. Exploring the perceived image of energy efficiency measures in residential buildings: evidence from Apulia, Italy. J Clean Prod. 2018;197(Pt 1):349-355. doi:1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.149
  101. 2023. https://www.istat.it/.
  102. Wong EL, Ho KF, Wong SY, et al. Views on workplace policies and its impact on health-related quality of life during coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: cross-sectional survey of employees. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(3):344-353. doi:34172/ijhpm.2020.127
  103. Sedgwick P. Convenience sampling. BMJ. 2013;347:f6304. doi:1136/bmj.f6304
  104. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879-903. doi:1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  105. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: the eHealth literacy scale. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(4):e27. doi:2196/jmir.8.4.e27
  106. Ministry of Economy and Finance of Italy. Dichiarazioni dei redditi persone fisiche (Irpef) e dichiarazioni IVA per l’anno di imposta 2020. In: Stampa U, ed. Vol Comunicato n. 732023. MEF; 2022.
  107. Richardson HA, Simmering MJ, Sturman MC. A tale of three perspectives: examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organ Res Methods. 2009;12(4):762-800. doi:1177/1094428109332834
  108. Henseler J, Hubona G, Ray PA. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Ind Manag Data Syst. 2016;116(1):2-20. doi:1108/imds-09-2015-0382
  109. Rigdon EE. Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: in praise of simple methods. Long Range Plann. 2012;45(5-6):341-358. doi:1016/j.lrp.2012.09.010
  110. Sarstedt M, Hair JF, Ringle CM, Thiele KO, Gudergan SP. Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: where the bias lies! J Bus Res. 2016;69(10):3998-4010. doi:1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.007
  111. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173-1182. doi:1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
  112. Cohen B, Kietzmann J. Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organ Environ. 2014;27(3):279-296. doi:1177/1086026614546199
  113. Frazier PA, Tix AP, Barron KE. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol. 2004;51(1):115-134. doi:1037/0022-0167.51.1.115
  114. Cain MK, Zhang Z, Yuan KH. Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: prevalence, influence and estimation. Behav Res Methods. 2017;49(5):1716-1735. doi:3758/s13428-016-0814-1
  115. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39-50. doi:1177/002224378101800104
  116. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull. 1988;103(3):411-423. doi:1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
  117. Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980;88(3):588-606. doi:1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
  118. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge; 2013.
  119. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Mena JA. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J Acad Mark Sci. 2012;40(3):414-433. doi:1007/s11747-011-0261-6
  120. Hoe SL. Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modelling technique. J Qual Methods. 2008;3(1):76-83.
  121. Grewal R, Cote JA, Baumgartner H. Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: implications for theory testing. Mark Sci. 2004;23(4):519-529. doi:1287/mksc.1040.0070
  122. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. 3rd. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
  123. Hwang J, Griffiths MA. Share more, drive less: millennials value perception and behavioral intent in using collaborative consumption services. J Consum Mark. 2017;34(2):132-146. doi:1108/jcm-10-2015-1560
  124. Anwar ST. The sharing economy and collaborative consumption: strategic issues and global entrepreneurial opportunities. J Int Entrep. 2023;21(1):60-88. doi:1007/s10843-022-00323-0
  125. Sibbritt K, Volgger M, Weber P, Geneste L. An exploration of collaborative economy entrepreneurs in the tourism industry through the novel prism of epistemic culture. J Hosp Tour Manag. 2019;40:103-113. doi:1016/j.jhtm.2019.06.005
  126. de Cosmo LM, Piper L, Nataraajan R, Petruzzellis L. The effects of circular format on store patronage: an Italian perspective. J Bus Res. 2022;140:430-438. doi:1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.013
  127. Pennestrì F, Banfi G. Primary care of the (near) future: exploring the contribution of digitalization and remote care technologies through a case study. Healthcare. 2023;11(15):2147. doi:3390/healthcare11152147
  128. Svensson A. Challenges in using IT systems for collaboration in healthcare services. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(10):1773. doi:3390/ijerph16101773
  129. Benvenuto M, Rosa A, Viola C. Prospective analysis for the design of a new domain of socio-technical planning, programming and control in the health sector. Mecosan. 2020;113:259-269.
  130. Chong ZJ, Qin B, Bandyopadhyay T. Autonomy for mobility on demand. In: Lee S, Cho H, Yoon KJ, Lee J, eds. Intelligent Autonomous Systems 12. Berlin, Heidelberg; Springer; 2013:671-682. doi:1007/978-3-642-33926-4_64
  131. Benvenuto M, Sambati FV, Viola C. The impact of internet usage on health-care expenditures and sustainability. In: 5th International Scientific Conference ERAZ-Knowledge Based Sustainable Development. ERAZ; 2019:95-107. doi:31410/eraz.s.p.2019.95

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 12 February 2024
  • Revise Date: 11 September 2024
  • Accept Date: 04 November 2024
  • First Publish Date: 05 November 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics