Korean J Women Health Nurs.  2023 Sep;29(3):208-218. 10.4069/kjwhn.2023.09.11.02.

What factors influence continuous usage intention of head-mounted display-based virtual reality content?: a cross-sectional survey

• Choi J
• Moon H
• Park M

• KMID: 2547156
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2023.09.11.02

Abstract

Purpose
The aim of this study was to explore the continuous usage intention of head-mounted display-based virtual reality (HMD-based VR) content among college students. The study also sought to understand how this intention is influenced by factors related to personal cognition, social aspects, VR content, and HMD-related elements. Methods: This descriptive correlational study used a self-report questionnaire to survey 217 students from two universities in Korea who had prior experience with HMD-based VR content. Results: The mean score for continuous usage intention of HMD-based VR content was 2.59±0.57 points (range, 1–5 points). Regarding the average frequency of HMD-based VR content usage, 64.5% of participants reported using it 1 to 2 times, while 91.7% indicated a total HMD-based VR usage period of less than 6 months. Factors such as personal cognition, VR content, social aspects, and HMD-related elements had explanatory power of 35.1%, 10.7%, 4.4%, and 2.5%, respectively, for the continuous usage intention of HMD-based VR content. Additionally, engagement (β=.45, p<.001), influential others (β=.37, p<.001), environmental support (β=–.18, p=.030), and cyber sickness (β=–.21, p=.001) were identified as having a significant influence. Conclusion: When developing HMD-based VR content, strategies to improve users’ personal cognition should be included. Additionally, it is necessary to develop strategies that enhance enjoyment and interest in the content, while also facilitating ongoing social support. Furthermore, coping strategies should be devised that take into account cyber sickness, a potential side effect of these devices.

Keyword

Head-mounted display; Health services; Intention; Virtual reality

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. Distribution of personal cognition, social, VR content, and HMD-related factors according to the experience of using VR content by type. HMD, head-mounted display; VR, virtual reality.

Reference

1. Lai Z, Hu YC, Cui Y, Sun L, Dai N, Lee HS. Furion: engineering high-quality immersive virtual reality on today’s mobile devices. IEEE Trans Mob Computing. 2019; 19(7):1586–1602. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmc.2019.2913364.

2. Tian N, Lopes P, Boulic R. A review of cybersickness in head-mounted displays: raising attention to individual susceptibility. Virtual Real. 2022; 26(4):1409–1441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-022-00638-2.

3. Karthigha M, Ramasamy M. Virtual reality in medical training, patient rehabilitation and psychotherapy: applications and future trends. In : Augustine P, Raj P, Munirathinam S, editors. Enterprise digital transformation. Abingdon, UK: CRC Press;2022. p. 317–334.

4. van der Kruk SR, Zielinski R, MacDougall H, Hughes-Barton D, Gunn KM. Virtual reality as a patient education tool in healthcare: a scoping review. Patient Educ Couns. 2022; 105(7):1928–1942. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2022.02.005.

5. Kenngott HG, Pfeiffer M, Preukschas AA, Bettscheider L, Wise PA, Wagner M, et al. IMHOTEP: cross-professional evaluation of a three-dimensional virtual reality system for interactive surgical operation planning, tumor board discussion and immersive training for complex liver surgery in a head-mounted display. Surg Endosc. 2022; 36(1):126–134. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08246-4.

6. Gavgani AM, Nesbitt KV, Blackmore KL, Nalivaiko E. Profiling subjective symptoms and autonomic changes associated with cybersickness. Auton Neurosci. 2017; 203:41–50. doi:10.1016/j.autneu.2016.12.004.

7. Nam S, Yu H, Shin D. User experience in virtual reality games: the effect of presence on enjoyment. ITPR. 2017; 24(3):85–125.

8. Garcia-Agundez A, Reuter C, Caserman P, Konrad R, Göbel S. Identifying cybersickness through heart rate variability alterations. Int J Virtual Real. 2019; 19(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.20870/IJVR.2019.19.1.2907.

9. Weech S, Kenny S, Barnett-Cowan M. Presence and cybersickness in virtual reality are negatively related: a review. Front Psychol. 2019; 10:158. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00158.

10. Shim H, Kim YJ, Park M. Differences on satisfaction of healthcare applications by smartphone users’ characteristics. J Korea Acad Ind Coop Soc. 2016; 17(7):410–419. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2016.17.7.410.

11. Trice AW, Treacy ME. Utilization as a dependent variable in MIS research. ACM SIGMIS Database. 1988; 19(3-4):33–41. https://doi.org/10.1145/65766.65771.

12. Park M. Factors affecting intention to use smartphone healthcare applications. J Korea Acad Ind Coop Soc. 2017; 18(4):143–153. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2017.18.4.143.

13. Park M, Yoo H, Kim J, Lee J. Why do young people use fitness apps? Cognitive characteristics and app quality. Electron Commer Res. 2018; 18(4):755–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-017-9282-7.

14. Sim YB, Seo YJ, Kim JM, Kim SH, Sung DH. Factors related to the intent to use the medical application (M-APP) of smart phone of hospital nurses. Health Policy Manag. 2012; 22(2):249–262. https://doi.org/10.4332/KJHPA.2012.22.2.249.

15. Stoyanov SR, Hides L, Kavanagh DJ, Zelenko O, Tjondronegoro D, Mani M. Mobile app rating scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015; 3(1):e27. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.3422.

16. Lu Y. A study on presence, user experience and iIntention of continuous use of immersive media news content: focusing on the report of Pyeongchang 2018 Olympic winter games [dissertaion]. Seoul: Chung-Ang University;2018. 92.

17. Kennedy RS, Lane NE, Berbaum KS, Lilienthal MG. Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol. 1993; 3(3):203–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3.

18. Eoh WS, Choi Y, Shin CS. Effects of wearing between respirators and glasses simultaneously on physical and visual discomforts and quantitative fit factors. J Korean Soc Saf. 2018; 33(2):52–60. https://doi.org/10.14346/JKOSOS.2018.33.2.52.

19. Hou Y, Kang S, Moon T. Customers’ continuous usage intention of virtual reality (VR) product. In : Lee R, editor. Software engineering, artificial intelligence, networking and parallel/distributed computing. SNPD 2018. Studies in computational intelligence, vol 790. Springer;Cham: 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98367-7_2.

20. Jang HJ, Kim KH. Study on the influence of VR characteristics on user satisfaction and intention to use continuously - focusing on VR presence, user characteristics, and VR sickness. J Korea Contents Assoc. 2018; 18(5):420–431. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2018.18.05.420.

21. Jang HJ, Noh GY. Extended technology acceptance model of VR head-mounted display in early stage of diffusion. J Digit Converg. 2017; 15(5):353–361. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2017.15.5.353.

22. Wang SM, Lin JC. The effect of social influence on the bloggers’ usage intention. Online Inf Rev. 2011; 35(1):50–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521111113588.

23. Newman M, Gatersleben B, Wyles KJ, Ratcliffe E. The use of virtual reality in environment experiences and the importance of realism. J Environ Psychol. 2022; 79(1):101733–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101733.

24. Servotte JC, Goosse M, Campbell SH, Dardenne N, Pilote B, Simoneau IL, et al. Virtual reality experience: immersion, sense of presence, and cybersickness. Clin Simul Nurs. 2020; 38(1):35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2019.09.006.