| Title |
Consumers’ intention to use health recommendation systems to receive personalized nutrition advice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-126 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sonja Wendel, Benedict GC Dellaert, Amber Ronteltap, Hans CM van Trijp |
| Abstract |
Sophisticated recommendation systems are used more and more in the health sector to assist consumers in healthy decision making. In this study we investigate consumers' evaluation of hypothetical health recommendation systems that provide personalized nutrition advice. We examine consumers' intention to use such a health recommendation system as a function of options related to the underlying system (e.g. the type of company that generates the advice) as well as intermediaries (e.g. general practitioner) that might assist in using the system. We further explore if the effect of both the system and intermediaries on intention to use a health recommendation system are mediated by consumers' perceived effort, privacy risk, usefulness and enjoyment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 4 | 67% |
| Mexico | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 9% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 23% |
| Unknown | 17 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 32 | 28% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 12 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Psychology | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 22% |
| Unknown | 22 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2014.
All research outputs
#5,684,676
of 22,705,019 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,509
of 7,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,838
of 199,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#38
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,705,019 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 199,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.