## 3 Results
### AGAPE Assistant
#### 3.3.5 Short form User Experience Questionnaire (SUEQ)  
The user experience was also evaluated on a qualitative basis using the short form of the User Experience Questionnaire [21]. The SUEQ covers both classical usability aspects and user experience aspects on the following key topics, scaled from \(-3\) (most negative answer) to \(+3\) (most positive answer):  
1. Obstructive vs. Supportive: This dimension assesses whether users perceive the technology as hindering or facilitating their tasks and activities. Higher scores indicate a more supportive experience, suggesting that users find the technology helpful rather than obstructive.
2. Complicated vs. Easy: This dimension gauges the perceived complexity of the technology. Higher scores indicate that users find the technology easy to use and understand, while lower scores suggest a more complicated interface or system.
3. Inefficient vs. Efficient: This dimension evaluates the perceived efficiency of the technology in assisting users with their goals. Higher scores indicate that users perceive the technology as effective and efficient in supporting their activities.
4. Confusing vs. Clear: This dimension assesses the clarity and comprehensibility of the technology. Higher scores indicate that users find the technology clear and easy to follow, while lower scores suggest confusion or ambiguity in its usage.
5. Boring vs. Exciting: This dimension measures the level of engagement and excitement elicited by the technology. Higher scores suggest that users find the technology engaging and stimulating, while lower scores indicate a lack of interest or excitement.
6. Not interesting vs. Interesting: This dimension further evaluates the level of interest sparked by the technology. Higher scores indicate that users find the technology interesting and engaging, while lower scores suggest a lack of interest or novelty.
7. Conventional vs. Inventive: This dimension assesses whether users perceive the technology as conventional or innovative. Higher scores suggest that users perceive the technology as innovative and inventive, offering new and creative solutions to their needs.
8. Usual vs. Leading Edge: This dimension evaluates whether users perceive the technology as standard or cutting-edge. Higher scores indicate that users perceive the technology as advanced and at the forefront of its field.  
Upon analysing the SUEQ scores, it is evident that there is a range of responses among the OAs. The scores vary from 33 to 51, with a mean score of 39.21. This variability suggests that individuals may have different perceptions and experiences with integrated technologies and a personalised care approach.  
Further examination of the individual SUEQ items reveals specific areas of satisfaction and potential areas for improvement. For instance, items related to usefulness (1, 3, 6) and usability (2, 4, 5) of the technology received relatively high scores, indicating that participants found the system easy to use and valuable in enhancing their daily lives. However, aspects such as aesthetics and content received slightly lower scores, suggesting room for enhancement in the design and information provided by the technology.  
Overall, the final SUEQ scores suggest a generally positive perception of the integrated IoT and wearable technologies for personalized elderly care. However, there are opportunities for refinement to better meet the needs and preferences of older adults. Addressing these areas of improvement can lead to a more satisfying and effective solution for promoting active and healthy aging among older adults.