| Title |
User preferences and usability of iVitality: optimizing an innovative online research platform for home-based health monitoring
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s82510 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mara van Osch, AJM Rövekamp, Stephanie N Bergman-Agteres, Liselotte W Wijsman, Sharon J Ooms, Simon P Mooijaart, Joan Vermeulen |
| Abstract |
The iVitality online research platform has been developed to gain insight into the relationship between early risk factors (ie, poorly controlled hypertension, physical or mental inactivity) and onset and possibly prevention of dementia. iVitality consists of a website, a smartphone application, and sensors that can monitor these indicators at home. Before iVitality can be implemented, it should fit the needs and preferences of users, ie, offspring of patients with dementia. This study aimed to explore users' motivation to participate in home-based health monitoring research, to formulate requirements based on users' preferences to optimize iVitality, and to test usability of the smartphone application of iVitality. We recruited 13 participants (aged 42-64 years, 85% female), who were offspring of patients with dementia. A user-centered methodology consisting of four iterative phases was used. Three semistructured interviews provided insight into motivation and acceptance of using iVitality (phase 1). A focus group with six participants elaborated on expectations and preferences regarding iVitality (phase 2). Findings from phase 1 and 2 were triangulated by two semistructured interviews (phase 3). Four participants assessed the usability of the smartphone application (phase 4) using a think aloud procedure and a questionnaire measuring ease and efficiency of use (scale 1-7; higher scores indicated better usability). All participants were highly motivated to contribute to dementia research. However, the frequency of home-based health monitoring should not be too high. Participants preferred to receive feedback about their measurements and information regarding the relationship between these measurements and dementia. Despite minor technical errors, iVitality was considered easy and efficient to use (mean score 5.50, standard deviation 1.71). Offspring of patients with dementia are motivated to contribute to home-based monitoring research by using iVitality and are able to use the smartphone application. The formulated requirements will be embedded to optimize iVitality. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 121 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 16% |
| Researcher | 18 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 24 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 15% |
| Psychology | 18 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 21% |
| Unknown | 31 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,103,978
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,300
of 1,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,512
of 281,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#31
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 281,797 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.