The acceptability of an Internet-based exposure treatment for flying phobia with and without therapist guidance: patients’ expectations, satisfaction, treatment preferences, and usability

Figures & data

Figure 1 A comparison of mean SUS scores by quartile, adjective ratings, and the acceptability of the overall SUS score.

Note: Data from Bangor et al.^65,67
Abbreviation: SUS, System Usability Scale.

Figure 2 Navigation structure of the system.

Table 1 Sociodemographic and participant data

Sociodemographic variables	NO-FEAR Airlines completely self-applied (N = 23)	NO-FEAR Airlines self-applied with therapist guidance (N = 23)
Age years	36.30 (8.14)	38.87 (13.56)
Sex
Male	8 (30.8%)	6 (26.1%)
Female	15 (65.2%)	17 (73.9%)
Marital status
Married	12 (52.2%)	11 (47.8%)
Single	10 (43.5%)	11 (47.8%)
Divorced	1 (4.3%)	1 (4.3%)
Educational level
Secondary school	2 (8.7%)	7 (30.4%)
University education	21 (91.3%)	16 (69.6%)
Occupation
Student	4 (17.4%)	4 (17.4%)
Unemployed	4 (17.4%)	4 (17.4%)
Employed	15 (65.2%)	12 (52.2%)
Retired	0 (%)	3 (13.0%)
Medication
Yes	1 (4.3)	2 (8.7%)
No	22 (95.7%)	21 (91.3%)

Notes: Mean (SD) are presented for age. There are no significant between-group differences.

Table 2 Expectations and satisfaction scores

Statements and groups	Expectations	Satisfaction
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
1. Logical
NFA	8.17 (1.23)	8.12 (1.54)
NFA + TG	8.48 (1.41)	7.75 (1.91)
Total sample	8.33 (1.32)	7.94 (1.71)
2. Satisfaction with the Internet-based program
NFA	8.40 (1.75)	7.35 (1.97)
NFA + TG	8.87 (1.46)	7.06 (1.98)
Total sample	8.63 (1.61)	7.21 (1.95)
3. Recommend to others
NFA	8.74 (1.36)	8.18 (1.98)
NFA + TG	8.74 (1.42)	8.31 (2.08)
Total sample	8.74 (1.37)	8.24 (2.00)
4. Usefulness for treating other psychological problems
NFA	7.00 (1.98)	6.82 (2.13)
NFA + TG	7.70 (2.14)	6.56 (2.30)
Total sample	7.34 (2.07)	6.69 (2.19)
5. Usefulness for treating their problem
NFA	7.74 (1.71)	7.24 (2.05)
NFA + TG	8.26 (2.00)	6.75 (3.04)
Total sample	8.00 (1.86)	7.00 (2.55)
6. Aversiveness
NFA	2.61 (3.26)	2.35 (2.67)
NFA + TG	2.35 (2.98)	1.75 (2.11)
Total sample	2.48 (3.10)	2.06 (2.39)

Note: There are no significant between-group differences.

Abbreviations: NFA, NO-FEAR Airlines completely self-applied; NFA + TG, NO-FEAR Airlines self-applied with therapist guidance.

Table 3 Opinion interview

Statement	NO-FEAR Airlines completely self-applied	NO-FEAR Airlines self-applied with therapist guidance	Total sample
1. Exposure scenarios usefulness	3.53 (0.72)	3.44 (1.09)	3.48 (0.91)
2. Fixed pictures’ usefulness	2.82 (1.07)	3.25 (1.13)	3.03 (1.10)
3. Sounds’ usefulness	4.53 (0.62)	4.18 (0.98)	4.36 (0.82)
4. Psychoeducation component’s usefulness	3.76 (1.15)	3.56 (1.15)	3.67 (1.14)
5. Overlearning usefulness	3.47 (1.28)	3.88 (1.09)	3.67 (1.19)
6. Would you like to have access to the program to use it in the future?
Yes	76.5%	68.8%	72.9%
No	23.5%	31.3%	27.3%

Notes: Mean (SD) are presented. There are no significant between-group differences.

Table 4 Usability and Acceptability Questionnaire

Statement	NO-FEAR Airlines completely self-applied	NO-FEAR Airlines self-applied with therapist guidance	Total sample	% (3 or 4)
1. People could learn to use NO-FEAR Airlines quickly	3.71 (0.47)	3.63 (0.81)	3.67 (0.65)	97.82
2. I felt confident using NO-FEAR Airlines	3.82 (0.39)	3.75 (0.44)	3.79 (0.42)	100
3. Generally, I knew what I had to do at all times	3.59 (0.62)	3.87 (0.34)	3.73 (0.52)	97.82
4. Once I had learned how to use NO-FEAR Airlines, I could do the tasks quickly	3.71 (0.99)	3.25 (1.48)	3.49 (1.25)	91.30
5. NO-FEAR Airlines could be used anywhere and in any context	2.88 (1.17)	2.56 (1.50)	2.72 (1.33)	73.91
6. NO-FEAR Airlines’ instructions are easy to follow	3.53 (1.01)	3.81 (0.40)	3.67 (0.77)	97.82
7. Font size and row button size are sufficient for me	3.71 (0.99)	3.81 (0.40)	3.76 (0.75)	97.82
8. I would like to use this system frequently	3.10 (1.03)	2.88 (1.15)	2.97 (1.09)	78.26
9. Overall, I think NO-FEAR Airlines is quite useful to me	2.88 (0.93)	3.00 (1.26)	2.94 (1.09)	82.61
10. Overall, I think NO-FEAR Airlines is easy to use	3.88 (0.33)	3.81 (0.40)	3.85 (0.36)	100
Overall score	86.91 (10.73)	85.94 (11.21)	86.44 (10.81)

Notes: Mean (SD) are presented; (3 or 4) = proportion of participants from the total sample who rated a score of 3 or 4 on each statement. There are no significant between-group differences.

BangorAKortumPTMillerJTAn empirical evaluation of the system usability scaleInt J Hum-Comput Int2008246574594

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

BangorAKortumPMillerJDetermining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scaleJ Usability Stud200943114123

 Google Scholar