The Moderation of Health Motivation on The Adoption of Wearable Health Devices (WHD), Quantitative Study of Millennials in Indonesia

Eries Setiyawan; Daniel Tumpal Hamonangan Aruan

doi:10.70716/ecoma.v4i3.582

Authors

Eries Setiyawan Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia
Daniel Tumpal Hamonangan Aruan Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70716/ecoma.v4i3.582

Keywords:

Health Motivation, Intention to Use, Actual Usage, Wearable Health Devices (WHD)

Abstract

The rapid growth of wearable health devices (WHD) has not been matched by equivalent adoption, particularly in emerging economies such as Indonesia. Previous studies have primarily focused on technological determinants, while the moderating role of health motivation in linking behavioral intention to actual usage remains underexplored. This study extends the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by integrating perceived product value and health motivation to explain WHD adoption among Indonesian millennials. A quantitative approach with a cross-sectional survey design was employed. Data were collected from 350 millennial respondents in Indonesia and analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling-Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS). The measurement model assessment confirmed that all variables met the criteria for validity and reliability. The findings reveal that health motivation significantly moderates the relationship between intention to use and actual usage of WHD. Perceived compatibility, perceived technology accuracy, and perceived usefulness positively and significantly influence perceived product value. In addition, perceived product value significantly affects intention to use, while intention to use and health motivation significantly affect actual WHD usage. Conversely, perceived cost, perceived personal privacy, and social image do not significantly influence perceived product value. These results indicate that WHD adoption among Indonesian millennials is primarily driven by functional factors, including device compatibility with users’ lifestyles, technological accuracy, usefulness, perceived product value, and health motivation. This study contributes theoretically to the literature on health technology adoption and provides practical implications for WHD manufacturers in developing marketing strategies focused on product value and health motivation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Bhattacherjee, A., & Hikmet, N. (2007). Physicians’ resistance toward healthcare information technology: A theoretical model and empirical test. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(6), 725–737. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000717

Canhoto, A. I., & Arp, S. (2017). Exploring the factors that support adoption and sustained use of health and fitness wearables. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(1–2), 32–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1234505

Chandrasekaran, R., Katthula, V., & Moustakas, E. (2020). Patterns of use and key predictors for the use of wearable health care devices by US adults: Insights from a national survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(10), e22443. https://doi.org/10.2196/22443

Chuah, S. H.-W., Rauschnabel, P. A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T., & Lade, S. (2016). Wearable technologies: The role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.047

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

Dehghani, M., Kim, K. J., & Dangelico, R. M. (2018). Will smartwatches last? Factors contributing to intention to keep using smart wearable technology. Telematics and Informatics, 35(2), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.007

Gao, Y., Li, H., & Luo, Y. (2015). An empirical study of wearable technology acceptance in healthcare. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(9), 1704–1723. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2015-0087

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Hayat, N., Zainol, N. R., Salameh, A. A., Al Mamun, A., Yang, Q., & Md Salleh, M. F. (2022). How health motivation moderates the effect of intention and usage of wearable medical devices? An empirical study in Malaysia. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 931557. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.931557

Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010). The technology acceptance model: Its past and its future in health care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 43(1), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002

Hsiao, K.-L., & Chen, C.-C. (2018). What drives smartwatch purchase intention? Perspectives from hardware, software, design, and value. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.10.002

Kalantari, M. (2017). Consumers’ adoption of wearable technologies: Literature review, synthesis, and future research agenda. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 12(3), 274–307. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2017.089665

Kim, K. J., & Shin, D.-H. (2015). An acceptance model for smart watches: Implications for the adoption of future wearable technology. Internet Research, 25(4), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-05-2014-0126

Krey, N., Chuah, S. H.-W., Ramayah, T., & Rauschnabel, P. A. (2019). How functional and emotional ads drive smartwatch adoption: The moderating role of consumer innovativeness and extraversion. Internet Research, 29(3), 578–602. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0534

Li, H., Wu, J., Gao, Y., & Shi, Y. (2016). Examining individuals’ adoption of healthcare wearable devices: An empirical study from privacy calculus perspective. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 88, 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.12.010

Lunney, A., Cunningham, N. R., & Eastin, M. S. (2016). Wearable fitness technology: A structural investigation into acceptance and perceived fitness outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.007

Mattison, G., Canfell, O., Forrester, D., Dobbins, C., Smith, D., Töyräs, J., & Sullivan, C. (2022). The influence of wearables on health care outcomes in chronic disease: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(7), e36690. https://doi.org/10.2196/36690

Mercer, K., Li, M., Giangregorio, L., Burns, C., & Grindrod, K. (2016). Behavior change techniques present in wearable activity trackers: A critical analysis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 4(2), e40. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.4461

Nelson, E. C., Verhagen, T., & Noordzij, M. L. (2016). Health empowerment through activity trackers: An empirical smart wristband study. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.065

Peng, C., Zhao, H., & Zhang, S. (2021). Determinants and cross-national moderators of wearable health tracker adoption: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 13(23), 13328. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313328

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Sergueeva, K., Shaw, N., & Lee, S. H. (2020). Understanding the barriers and factors associated with consumer adoption of wearable technology devices in managing personal health. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 37(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1547

Snell, W. E., Jr., Johnson, G., Lloyd, P. J., & Hoover, M. W. (1991). The health orientation scale: A measure of psychological tendencies associated with health. European Journal of Personality, 5(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410050208

Talukder, M. S., Chiong, R., Bao, Y., & Hayat Malik, B. (2019). Acceptance and use predictors of fitness wearable technology and intention to recommend: An empirical study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(1), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-01-2018-0009

Thapa, S., Bello, A., Maurushat, A., & Farid, F. (2023). Security risks and user perception towards adopting wearable Internet of Medical Things. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(8), 5519. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20085519

Tian, Y., Li, Z., Liu, D., & Son, S. (2025). Research on the influencing factors of users’ continuance intentions of wearable medical devices—A perspective integrating the UTAUT model and gamification elements. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1602230. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1602230

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Wu, L.-H., Wu, L.-C., & Chang, S.-C. (2016). Exploring consumers’ intention to accept smartwatch. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.005

Yang, H., Yu, J., Zo, H., & Choi, M. (2016). User acceptance of wearable devices: An extended perspective of perceived value. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 256–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.007