Mobile Health Technology Adoption and Biomedical Innovation Performance: The Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation among Healthcare Professionals
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v22i08.62319Keywords:
Mobile Health, System Quality, Perceived Usefulness, Entrepreneurial Orientation, Biomedical Innovation PerformanceAbstract
This study looks at how mobile health system quality (SQ) and perceived usefulness (PU) affect professionals’ attitudes toward using mobile health technologies. It also explores how these factors relate to entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and perceived biomedical innovation performance (PBIP) in biomedical engineering settings. The research used a quantitative cross-sectional approach, gathering data from 260 biomedical and healthcare technology professionals in Indonesia. Partial least squares-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to analyse both direct and mediating relationships among the main variables. The results showed that both mobile health system quality and PU had a positive link to attitude toward using mobile health systems. Attitude toward using was also positively linked to EO, which in turn was strongly related to PBIP. Attitude toward using also played an important role in connecting technology perceptions with EO. This study highlights how reliable, user-focused mobile health systems can encourage innovative professional behaviour in biomedical and healthcare technology fields. The results advance digital health and biomedical engineering research by linking perceptions of technology, entrepreneurial orientation, and perceived innovation performance.
References
[1] Serhani, M. A., El Menshawy, M., & Benharref, A. (2016). SME2EM: Smart mobile end-to-end monitoring architecture for life-long diseases. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 68, 137-154.
[2] Eldein, A. I. E. S., Ammar, H. H., & Dzielski, D. G. (2017, December). Enterprise architecture of mobile healthcare for large crowd events. In 2017 6th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology and Accessibility (ICTA) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
[3] Sheikhbahei, E., & Ari, A. A. (2024). Harnessing the power of emerging digital technologies for improved sustainability and productivity in biomedical engineering and neuroscience. Scientific Hypotheses, 1, 47-52.
[4] Mahalakshmi, K., Palanivelu, V. R., & Kirubakaran, D. (2025). Global Market trends in biomedical sensors: Materials, device engineering, and healthcare applications. Biomedical Materials & Devices, 1-19.
[5] Marques, G., Pitarma, R., M. Garcia, N., & Pombo, N. (2019). Internet of things architectures, technologies, applications, challenges, and future directions for enhanced living environments and healthcare systems: a review. Electronics, 8(10), 1081.
[6] Silva, P. (2015). Davis' technology acceptance model (TAM)(1989). Information seeking behavior and technology adoption: Theories and trends, 205-219.
[7] Schnall, R., Higgins, T., Brown, W., Carballo-Dieguez, A., & Bakken, S. (2015). Trust, perceived risk, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness as factors related to mHealth technology use. Studies in health technology and informatics, 216, 467.
[8] Baig, M. M., GholamHosseini, H., & Connolly, M. J. (2015). Mobile healthcare applications: system design review, critical issues and challenges. Australasian physical & engineering sciences in medicine, 38(1), 23-38.
[9] Pang, Z., Yang, G., Khedri, R., & Zhang, Y. T. (2018). Introduction to the special section: convergence of automation technology, biomedical engineering, and health informatics toward the healthcare 4.0. IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering, 11, 249-259.
[10] Basilakis, J., Lovell, N. H., Redmond, S. J., & Celler, B. G. (2010). Design of a decision-support architecture for management of remotely monitored patients. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 14(5), 1216-1226.
[11] Sezgin, E., & Yıldırım, S. Ö. (2014). A literature review on attitudes of health professionals towards health information systems: from e-health to m-health. Procedia Technology, 16, 1317-1326.
[12] Abbasi, R., Zare, S., & Ahmadian, L. (2020). Investigating the attitude of patients with chronic diseases about using mobile health. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 36(2), 139-144.
[13] Erfannia, L., Barman, M. P., Hussain, S., Barati, R., & Arji, G. (2020). How mobile health affects primary healthcare? Questionnaire design and attitude assessment. Digital health, 6, 2055207620942357.
[14] Oppong, E., Hinson, R. E., Adeola, O., Muritala, O., & Kosiba, J. P. (2021). The effect of mobile health service quality on user satisfaction and continual usage. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 32(1-2), 177-198.
[15] Edeen, G. G. (2014). Technology acceptance model for mobile health systems. IOSR Journal of Mobile Computing & Application.
[16] Kanchanatanee, K., Suwanno, N., & Jarernvongrayab, A. (2014). Effects of attitude toward using, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived compatibility on intention to use E-marketing. Journal of Management Research, 6(3), 1.
[17] Indarsin, T., & Ali, H. (2017). Attitude toward Using m-commerce: The analysis of perceived usefulness perceived ease of use, and perceived trust: Case study in Ikens Wholesale Trade, Jakarta–Indonesia. Saudi Journal of Business and Management Studies, 2(11), 995-1007.
[18] Prastiawan, D. I., Aisjah, S., & Rofiaty, R. (2021). The effect of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and social influence on the use of mobile banking through the mediation of attitude toward use. APMBA (Asia Pacific Management and Business Application), 9(3), 243-260.
[19] Guritno, S., & Siringoringo, H. (2013). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and attitude towards online shopping usefulness towards online airlines ticket purchase. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 81, 212-216.
[20] Jen, W. Y., & Chao, C. C. (2008). Measuring mobile patient safety information system success: an empirical study. International journal of medical informatics, 77(10), 689-697.
[21] Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
[22] Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic management journal, 10(1), 75-87.
[23] Güner, Ş., & Köse, İ. (2023). Proposal Of a Model Framework for Measuring Innovation Performance in Health. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(46), 333-355.
[24] Sakari Soininen, J., Puumalainen, K., Sjögrén, H., Syrjä, P., & Durst, S. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation in small firms–values-attitudes-behavior approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 19(6), 611-632.
[25] Ciabuschi, F., Baraldi, E., Lindahl, O., & Callegari, S. (2020). Supporting innovation against the threat of antibiotic resistance: Exploring the impact of public incentives on firm performance and entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Research, 112, 271-280.
[26] Morishita, W., Takayama, K., & Saotome, C. (2025). Patent Landscapes in Digital Health: Insights from Smartphone Technologies. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (iJOE), 21(02), pp. 84–97. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v21i02.52327
[27] Balasubramanian, S., Yang, Y., & Tello, S. (2020). Does university entrepreneurial orientation matter? Evidence from university performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(4), 661-682.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Istiyansyah Ulman Idris, Mohd Anuar Sulaiman, Muhammad Try Dharsana, Rianda Ridho Hafizh Thaha, Ihya Ulumuddin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
