ACCEPTEDPercentageofNoncompliancewithssignments br Table sum
Table 4 summarizes the number of clinical parameters and questionnaires actually inserted by patients versus their expected number, and the resulting noncompliance percentage.
The table shows that 6 patients have less than 30% of noncompliance with assignments, 5 of which reached 0%. The patients who had 0% of noncompliance actually inserted even more
parameters or questionnaires than expected, entering from 5 to 44 reports in excess. The median noncompliance is 10% (interquartile range 0-49.5).
3.4. Additional Insight
While patients received reminders for entering clinical parameters and for filling-in questionnaires, no reminders were planned for symptoms, expecting patients to insert them proactively upon their occurrence. This was done by all patients but one, as shown in Table 5.
We compared the reported severity of these symptoms with the scores of the EuroQoL questionnaire for those patients who compiled it HG-9-91-01 at least once in the whole treatment period. To obtain sensible statistics we considered only the symptoms reported in proximity to each
EuroQoL compilation (meaning 6 to 0 days before they filled-in the EuroQoL). Figure 4 ACCEPTEDshowstheresultsoftheregressionanalysis: a negative association (β= -0.0249, p=0.007) between the quality of life measured with EuroQoL and the symptoms severity can be highlighted.
able 6 shows the raw data used for deriving the relation shown in Figure 4. Each row in this table corresponds to a separate compilation of the EuroQoL questionnaire by a patient, thus the same patient may be referenced multiple times. For each submission, the number of symptoms reported by that patient in the preceding 6 days is indicated along with some information concerning their severity (i.e. min, max, median). Note that the numbers of symptoms referenced in this table are much less than those shown in Table 5, since the
majority of symptoms were not reported in proximity with a submission of the EuroQoL questionnaire.
Both patients’ and doctors’ questionnaires allowed free-text non-mandatory comments. Below, we report the English translations of the comments provided by 6 patients, grouped by theme.
Section 3.3.1 shows an overall satisfaction of patients (n=10) with the app. One patient argued that the usability might need improvement; however, he did not specify which functionalities were critical, only mentioning that the user manual was too cumbersome:
“First of all I think that an app conceived to bridge the communication gap (and/or ease the communication) between a doctor and a patient is an excellent idea, but as microfilaments is
designed right now, it does not get the job done. The app is not very intuitive, requires a ACCEPTEDlotofeffortfromthepatienttoreadthe manual. The app has to be simple, intuitive, and graphical.” [P ]
Two patients complained about the poor flexibility of the symptom reporting function (the section “How I feel today”), because the app allowed reporting only pain, nausea, and vomiting, but they would have liked to report also other symptoms experienced during the treatment:
“It is not very flexible to the patient’s needs (e.g., symptoms: why cannot I insert other symptoms besides those suggested by the app?).”[PA]
“Some functionalities are unnecessary (according to me). The section ‘How I feel today’ could be improved.” [PI]
One of those patients also argued that doctors should check if patients could actually measure all the required clinical parameters:
“You need to ensure that patients own all the tools necessary to measure the required clinical parameters.” [PA]