Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
User preferences and usability of iVitality: optimizing an innovative online research platform for home-based health monitoring
van Osch M, Rövekamp A, Bergman-Agteres SN, Wijsman LW, Ooms SJ, Mooijaart SP, Vermeulen J.. Patient preference and adherence, 2015-06-30
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background 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. Methods 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). Results 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). Conclusion 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
van Osch, M., Rövekamp, A., Bergman-Agteres, S. N., Wijsman, L. W., Ooms, S. J., Mooijaart, S. P., et al. (2015). User preferences and usability of iVitality: optimizing an innovative online research platform for home-based health monitoring. Patient preference and adherence. https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.s82510
Vancouver
van Osch M, Rövekamp A, Bergman-Agteres SN, Wijsman LW, Ooms SJ, Mooijaart SP, et al. User preferences and usability of iVitality: optimizing an innovative online research platform for home-based health monitoring. Patient preference and adherence. 2015. doi:10.2147/ppa.s82510. PMID: 26170635.
BibTeX
@article{vanosch2015-26170635,
author = {van Osch, M. and Rövekamp, A. and Bergman-Agteres, S. N. and Wijsman, L. W. and Ooms, S. J. and Mooijaart, S. P. and Vermeulen, J.},
title = {{User preferences and usability of iVitality: optimizing an innovative online research platform for home-based health monitoring}},
journal = {Patient preference and adherence},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.2147/ppa.s82510},
pmid = {26170635},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.s82510}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results All participants were highly motivated to contribute to dementia research.
Study details
- Study designclinical trial
- Participants13
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Patient preference and adherence) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | Design recorded as “clinical trial”, which our rubric does not rank (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 13 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26170635) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “users”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “users”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.