Acceptance and usability of a home-based monitoring tool of health indicators in children of people with dementia: a Proof of Principle (POP) study

Figures & data

Table 1 Sequences of health indicator measurements per protocol group

Week number	Protocol 1	Protocol 2
1 (baseline)	4d BP, 4d AC, 4d C+Q	4d BP, 4d AC, 4d C+Q
3	1d C+Q	1d BP, 1d C+Q
5	2d BP, 1d C+Q	1d BP, 1d C+Q
7	1d C+Q	1d BP, 1d C+Q
9	2d BP, 1d C+Q	1d BP, 1d C+Q
11	1d C+Q	1d BP, 1d C+Q
13	2d BP, 1d C+Q	1d BP, 1d C+Q
15	1d C+Q	1d BP, 1d C+Q
17	2d BP, 1d C+Q	1d BP, 1d C+Q
19	1d C+Q	1d BP, 1d C+Q
21	2d BP, 1d C+Q	1d BP, 1d C+Q
23	1d C+Q	1d BP, 1d C+Q
25	4d BP, 4d AC, 4d C+Q	4d BP, 4d AC, 4d C + Q

Abbreviations: d, days; BP, blood pressure; AC, physical activity; C, cognition; Q, lifestyle questions.

Table 2 Ten statements of the online focus groups

Week 1
Statement 1	iVitality fits into my daily life
Statement 2	I would like to use iVitality for 2 more years after this study
Statement 3	Contributing to scientific research is more important than gathering information about my health
Statement 4	iVitality is a user-friendly system
Statement 5	iVitality influenced my health and lifestyle
Week 2
Statement 6	I am sufficiently able to use iVitality without help
Statement 7	I would contact my general practitioner if my blood pressure was too high
Statement 8	I think that my privacy was guaranteed during the use of iVitality
Statement 9	I trust iVitality to accurately present my health data
Statement 10	What would you like to change about the way you used iVitality during the study?

Table 3 Baseline characteristics of participants included in analyses of online questionnaires

	Protocol 1 (n=62)	Protocol 2 (n=73)
Mean age in years (SD; min–max)	56.4 (4.9; 48–68)	57.8 (5.3; 49–72)
Gender (female/male)	42/20	52/21
Indication of hypertension during study without prior diagnosis (yes/no)	16/46	13/60

Table 4 Comparison of mean acceptance and usability scores between protocol groups at baseline (T1) and after 3 months of follow-up (T2)

	Protocol 1 (n=62)	Protocol 2 (n=73)	Two-sample/independent t-test
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	t	P-value
T1
Motivation	5.09 (0.45)	4.97 (0.52)	1.44	0.15
Performance expectancy	5.03 (1.1)	4.72 (1.08)	1.64	0.10
Effort expectancy	5.74 (1.01)	5.64 (0.94)	0.59	0.56
Social influence	3.05 (1.23)	2.89 (1.10)	0.79	0.43
Affect	5.61 (0.88)	5.48 (0.78)	0.87	0.39
Trust	5.95 (0.78)	5.95 (0.82)	0.00	0.80
Self-efficacy	5.36 (1.00)	5.36 (0.87)	−0.01	0.99
Time	4.37 (0.99)	4.14 (1.10)	1.29	0.20
System usefulness	6.53 (0.78)	6.60 (0.54)	−0.66	0.51
Information quality	6.37 (0.74)	6.47 (0.63)	−0.90	0.37
Interface quality	6.23 (0.90)	6.29 (0.82)	−0.38	0.70
T2
Motivation	5.10 (0.41)	5.03 (0.39)	1.05	0.30
Performance expectancy	5.05 (0.98)	4.70 (1.07)	1.94	0.06
Effort expectancy	6.18 (0.92)	6.16 (1.03)	0.11	0.91
Social influence	3.45 (1.25)	3.75 (1.29)	−1.36	0.18
Affect	5.71 (0.97)	5.74 (0.95)	−0.16	0.87
Trust	6.04 (0.83)	6.07 (0.79)	−0.19	0.85
Self-efficacy	5.48 (0.85)	5.44 (0.94)	0.28	0.78
Time	4.29 (0.88)	4.18 (0.89)	0.70	0.48
System usefulness	6.51 (0.63)	6.59 (0.52)	−0.84	0.40
Information quality	6.23 (1.00)	6.35 (0.70)	−0.86	0.39
Interface quality	6.09 (0.94)	6.17 (0.90)	−0.50	0.62

Table 5 Comparison of mean acceptance and usability scores between baseline (T1) and after 3 months of follow-up (T2) per protocol group

	T1	T2	Paired t-test
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	t	P-value
Protocol 1 (n=62)
Motivation	5.09 (0.45)	5.10 (0.41)	−0.13	0.90
Performance expectancy	5.03 (1.1)	5.05 (0.98)	−0.14	0.89
Effort expectancy	5.74 (1.01)	6.18 (0.92)	−2.81	0.01*
Social influence	3.05 (1.23)	3.45 (1.25)	−3.05	0.00*
Affect	5.61 (0.88)	5.71 (0.97)	−0.88	0.38
Trust	5.95 (0.78)	6.04 (0.83)	−0.93	0.37
Self-efficacy	5.36 (1.00)	5.48 (0.85)	−1.10	0.28
Time	4.37 (0.99)	4.29 (0.88)	0.57	0.57
System usefulness	6.53 (0.78)	6.51 (0.63)	0.21	0.84
Information quality	6.37 (0.74)	6.23 (1.00)	1.13	0.26
Interface quality	6.23 (0.90)	6.09 (0.94)	1.36	0.18
Protocol 2 (n=73)
Motivation	4.97 (0.52)	5.03 (0.39)	−0.95	0.34
Performance expectancy	4.72 (1.08)	4.70 (1.07)	0.20	0.84
Effort expectancy	5.64 (0.94)	6.16 (1.03)	−3.96	0.00*
Social influence	2.89 (1.10)	3.75 (1.29)	−5.82	0.00*
Affect	5.48 (0.78)	5.74 (0.95)	−2.46	0.02*
Trust	5.95 (0.82)	6.07 (0.79)	−1.19	0.24
Self-efficacy	5.36 (0.87)	5.44 (0.94)	−0.75	0.45
Time	4.14 (1.10)	4.18 (0.89)	−0.32	0.75
System usefulness	6.60 (0.54)	6.59 (0.52)	−0.02	0.99
Information quality	6.47 (0.63)	6.35 (0.70)	1.51	0.14
Interface quality	6.29 (0.82)	6.17 (0.90)	1.51	0.14

Note:

* P<0.05.

Table 6 Characteristics of online focus group (OFG) participants

	OFG 1 (n=11)	OFG 2 (n=15)
Mean age in years (SD; min–max)	57.9 (5.2; 51–70)	59.3 (6.2; 52–70)
Gender (female/male)	8/3	10/5
Indication of hypertension during study without prior diagnosis (yes/no)	0/11	4/11

Table 7 Participants’ activity on online focus group (OFG) forum

	OFG 1 (n=11)	OFG 2 (n=15)
Number of participants responding to all statements	2	6
Number of participants responding to 9 statements	1	3
Number of participants responding to 8 statements	2	0
Number of participants responding to 7 statements	0	2
Number of participants responding to 6 statements	2	0
Number of participants responding to 5 statements	1	2
Number of participants responding to 4 statements	1	1
Number of participants responding to 3 statements	1	1
Number of participants responding to 2 statements	1	0