## 3 Results
### Ancillary Analyses
#### 3.4.2 General Feedback from Clinicians  
The user acceptance questionnaire was completed by 16 clinicians at the recruitment time and 17 clinicians at the last follow-up (see Table 12). According to the SUS results, most clinicians who responded considered the system to be \"not easy to use\" (score \(\leq\) 50) (\(n\) = 7 at both time points) and reported experiencing usability issues (score 50-70) (increasing from \(n\) = 6 to 7). The developed generic questionnaire was completed by eleven clinicians (four clinicians, 37%, from UL; two clinicians, 18%, from SERGAS; two clinicians, 18%, from CHU; and three clinicians, 27%, from UKCM) (see Supplementary File). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline
**Questions 1** & **Time Point** & **Mean (SD)** & **Median** \\ \hline
1 st Question—How do you rate your & Initial & 6.87 (2.23) & 7 \\ experience with smart bracelets? & Middle & 6.00 (2.10) & 6 \\  & Final & 6.93 (1.53) & 7 \\
2 nd Question—How do you rate your & Initial & 6.80 (2.15) & 7 \\  & Middle & 7.33 (1.99) & 8 \\  & Final & 6.87 (2.10) & 7 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{1}\) [PERSON]’s ANOVA: For 1 st question, \(p\) = 0.04. For 2 nd question, \(p\) = 0.227.  
\end{table} 
Table 10: Results of patient feedback—Part C (means of all centers with standard deviation). Clinician evaluations of the PERSIST system revealed generally favorable, albeit not uniformly enthusiastic, perceptions. The system received a mean overall rating of 6.27 out of 10, with usability assessed more positively, averaging 7. Precision in risk identification by the PERSIST system was rated with a mean score of 6.9. A substantial majority of clinicians (nine out of ten) expressed a desire to integrate the PERSIST system into their clinical practice; however, two clinicians raised concerns regarding system processing speed and alignment with oncology practice workflows. The most valued functionalities of the PERSIST system included the provision of patient feedback data, vital parameter tracking, subjective patient reports, statistical summaries, and risk factor identification. The system was most frequently associated with general practice, followed by psychology, infectious diseases, and inflammatory diseases. Among modifiable lifestyle factors, physical activity was considered the most salient, followed by blood pressure, heart rate, and depression indicators. The overarching added value of the PERSIST system was perceived to be its capacity for patient monitoring. Regarding personalized care plans, clinician responses varied: some affirmed their contributions, while others expressed partial effectiveness or uncertainty. Suggested optimal strategies for implementing preventive measures based on individual patient trajectories included app automation, regular monitoring (weekly or bi-annually), and the incorporation of trained support staff. In contrast, clinician evaluations of the mClinician web version (version 1.0) were less favorable compared with the PERSIST system. The web interface received a mean overall rating of 6.1 out of 10. Most respondents (nine out of ten) expressed reluctance or unwillingness to integrate the web version into their clinical workflows; five clinicians indicated ambivalence, while four explicitly declined. The most valued components of the web version were mHealth data, followed by tests, general and medical history, diagnoses, symptoms, and cancer treatment information. However, clinicians recommended modifications or the removal of the tests, diagnostic, and therapeutic modules from the mClinician web version (version 1.0). In contrast, the mClinician mobile app (version 1.0) received significantly more positive feedback. The app earned a mean overall rating of 6 out of 10. A substantial majority of clinicians (nine out of ten) expressed a willingness to utilize the app in their practice, with only one clinician dissenting.