## 4 Results
### Multiple-Group Analysis  
The hypothesis associated with the moderating role of health consciousness was tested by conducting a multiple-group analysis (see Table 5 and Figure 2). This study divided the data (\(n\) = 391) according to levels of health consciousness, i.e., high/low-health-consciousness groups, using the median value. The chi-square difference between the constrained and unconstrained models was assessed, taking into account the difference in degrees of freedom (\(\Delta\chi^{2}\) > 3.84). Firstly, H8a was statistically supported (\(\Delta\chi^{2}\) = 5.130). More specifically, the \(\beta\) value for the high-health-consciousness group (0.399) was higher than the low-health-consciousness group (0.287). On the other hand, 8b (\(\Delta\chi^{2}\) = 0.002), H8c (\(\Delta\chi^{2}\) = 1.057), H8d (\(\Delta\chi^{2}\) = 0.485), and H8e (\(\Delta\chi^{2}\) = 2.858) were statistically not supported.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Path**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\beta\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(t\)**-Value**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Hypothesis**} \\ \hline H1 & Performance & \(\rightarrow\) & Attitude & 0.370 & 8.669 * & Supported \\ H2 & Effort expectancy & \(\rightarrow\) & Attitude & 0.268 & 4.928 * & Supported \\ H3 & Social influence & \(\rightarrow\) & Attitude & 0.152 & 2.793 * & Supported \\ H4 & Facilitating conditions & \(\rightarrow\) & Attitude & 0.288 & 5.300 * & Supported \\ H5 & Perceived risk & \(\rightarrow\) & Attitude & \(-\)0.183 & \(-\)4.082 * & Supported \\ H6 & Attitude & \(\rightarrow\) & Intentions to use & 0.797 & 18.252 * & Supported \\ H7 & Attitude & \(\rightarrow\) & Word-of-mouth intentions & 0.748 & 16.092 * & Supported \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Goodness-of-fit statistics: \(\chi^{2}\) = 817.331, \(df\) = 235, \(p\) < 0.001, NFI = 0.917, IFI = 0.939, CFI = 0.939, TLI = 0.928, and RMSEA = 0.080} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p\) < 0.05, NFI = Normed Fit Index, IFI = Incremental Fit Index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index, and RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.  
\end{table}
Table 4: Standardized parameter estimates for the structural model.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(1)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(2)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(3)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(4)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(5)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(6)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(7)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(8)**} \\ \hline (1) Performance expectancy & 3.69 (0.79) & 0.907 & **0.967** & 0.211 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.005 & 0.070 & 0.012 & 0.440 & 0.381 & 0.302 \\ (2) Effort expectancy & 3.37 (0.93) & 0.844 & 0.045 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & **0.942** & 0.287 & 0.433 & 0.363 & 0.420 & 0.453 & 0.404 \\ (3) Social influence & 4.00 (0.65) & 0.717 & 0.001 & 0.082 & **0.883** & 0.287 & 0.092 & 0.561 & 0.291 & 0.346 \\ (4) Facilitating conditions & 3.93 (0.64) & 0.744 & 0.005 & 0.187 & 0.082 & **0.897** & 0.208 & 0.451 & 0.431 & 0.448 \\ (5) Perceived risk & 1.97 (0.90) & 0.836 & 0.001 & 0.132 & 0.008 & 0.043 & **0.938** & \(-\)0.039 & 0.109 & 0.101 \\ (6) Attitude & 3.56 (0.88) & 0.816 & 0.194 & 0.176 & 0.315 & 0.203 & 0.002 & **0.930** & 0.749 & 0.698 \\ (7) Intentions to use & 3.39 (0.91) & 0.839 & 0.145 & 0.205 & 0.085 & 0.186 & 0.012 & 0.561 & **0.940** & 0.761 \\ (8) Word-of-mouth intentions & 3.42 (0.89) & 0.827 & 0.091 & 0.163 & 0.120 & 0.201 & 0.010 & 0.487 & 0.579 & **0.935** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Notes: SD = Standard Deviation; AVE = Average Variance Extracted. \({}^{\text{a}}\) Composite reliabilities are along the diagonal. \({}^{\text{b}}\) Correlations are above the diagonal. \({}^{\text{c}}\)Squared correlations are below the diagonal.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Descriptive statistics and associated measures.