## 5 Results
### Prototype Evaluation  
One physiotherapist and clinical exercise physiologist from phase one did not participate in the evaluation phase. We received a total of 10 responses in the evaluation phase (two physiotherapists, three clinical exercise physiologists, four physical trainers, and one General Practitioner). The average and number of responses above four for the usability questionnaire items are shown in Table 2 and Figure 4. The interface was well-received, with at least 60% of participants giving each a score (\(\geq\)4). The ease-of-use category received the highest and second highest rankings (average scores of 5 and 4.5). Items from the interface and satisfaction category were the third highest-scored items (average scores of 4.4 and 4.3). All other items had average scores above or equal to 4, except the items that corresponded to whether participants would use the prototype again (I11, average score 3.9), the prototype's usefulness (I13, average score 3.8), and whether the prototype has all the functions and capabilities participants expected to have (I16, average score 3.7). Overall, each item scored in either the \"positive\" or \"neutral\" range.  
Participants left several comments to the open-ended question about features that participants felt would be valuable to incorporate in future iterations of the application (Table 3).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**No.** & **Requirements** & **Most to Least Preferred (Objectives)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Data visualization and customization} \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Heart rate} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Stop count} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Most valuable activity and physiological parameters} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Sleries burned} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Sleep score, ECG, blood glucose} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Sedentary minutes} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Charts} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{The preferred way to view the summary reports} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{The preferred way to view the summary reports} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{The features was used to identify the features and assignments} \\ \multicolumn{3}{Figure 3: Web-based application prototype: (**a**) smartwatch data visualizations; (**b**) anomaly detection results.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline
**Question/Item** & **Average** & **\#Responses with Scores \(\geq\)4** \\ \hline \hline Ease of use & 4.5 & 10 \\ I1: The prototype was easy to use & 5 & 10 \\ I2: It was easy for me to learn and use the prototype & 4.5 & 10 \\ I3: The navigation was consistent when moving between screens. & 4.5 & 10 \\ I4: The interface of the prototype allowed me to use all the functions & 4.5 & 10 \\ I5: Whenever I made a mistake using the prototype, I could recover easily and quickly & 4.1 & 7 \\ \hline Interface and satisfaction & 4 & 7 \\ I6: I like the interface of the prototype & 4 & 7 \\ I7: The information in the prototype was well organized, so I could easily find the information I needed & 4.4 & 9 \\ I8: The prototype adequately acknowledged and provided information to let me know the progress of my action & 4.3 & 9 \\ I9: I feel comfortable using this prototype in social settings & 4 & 7 \\ I10: The amount of time involved in using this prototype has been fitting for me & 4.3 & 9 \\ I11: I would use this prototype again & 3.9 & 8 \\ I12: Overall, I am satisfied with this prototype & 4.2 & 8 \\ \hline \hline Usefulness & \\ I13: The prototype would be useful for my healthcare practice & 3.8 & 8 \\ I14: The prototype improved my access to delivering healthcare services & 4.1 & 8 \\ I15: The prototype helped me manage my patients’/clients’ health effectively & 4.1 & 7 \\ I16: This prototype has all the functions and capabilities I expected it to have & 3.7 & 6 \\ I17: This prototype provides an acceptable way to deliver healthcare services & 4 & 8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Results of the Usability Questionnaire.  
Figure 4: Distribution of responses.