## 3 Results
### Usability and User Experience Evaluation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Overall (n = 16)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Home Study (n = 10)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Clinical Setting Study (n = 6)**} \\ \hline  & **Mean (SD)** & \(p\) & **Mean (SD)** & \(p\) & **Mean (SD)** & \(p\) \\ \hline
**I think that I would like to use this website frequently** & & & & & & \\ \hline Baseline & 4.1 (1.0) & 0.494 & 4.0 (1.2) & 0.716 & 4.2 (0.8) & 0.289 \\ \hline Week 6 & 3.6 (1.2) & 3.8 (1.1) & 3.3 (1.4) & 3.3 (1.4) & 0.289 \\ \hline
**I found this product unnecessarily complex** & & & & & \\ \hline Baseline & 2.4 (1.3) & 0.508 & 2.2 (1.3) & 0.063 & 2.7 (1.2) & 0.363 \\ \hline Week 6 & 2.2 (1.3) & 1.7 (1.1) & & 3.0 (1.4) & 0.363 \\ \hline
**I thought this product was easy to use** & & & & & \\ \hline Baseline & 2.9 (1.5) & 0.041 * & 2.2 (1.2) & 0.004 * & 4.0 (1.1) & 0.611 \\ \hline Week 6 & 3.9 (1.0) & 4.0 (0.9) & & 3.7 (1.0) & & \\ \hline
**I think that I would need assistance to be able to use this product** & & & & & \\ \hline Baseline & 2.6 (1.5) & 0.133 & 2.2 (1.5) & 0.125 & 3.3 (1.5) & 0.403 \\ \hline Week 6 & 2.0 (1.3) & 1.8 (1.1) & & 2.3 (1.5) & & \\ \hline
**I found the various functions in this product were well integrated** & & & & & \\ \hline Baseline & 4.3 (0.9) & 0.391 & 4.4 (0.8) & 1.000 & 4.2 (1.2) & 0.203 \\ \hline Week 6 & 3.9 (1.3) & 4.4 (0.7) & & 3.2 (1.8) & & \\ \hline
**I thought there was too much inconsistency in this product** & & & & & \\ \hline Baseline & 2.4 (1.3) & 0.828 & 2.9 (1.4) & 0.125 & 1.5 (0.5) & 0.224 \\ \hline Week 6 & 2.3 (1.3) & 2.2 (1.4) & & 2.3 (1.2) & & \\ \hline
**I would imagine that most people could learn to use this product very quickly** & & & & & \\ \hline Baseline & 3.4 (1.2) & 0.388 & 3.3 (1.3) & 0.138 & 3.5 (1.0) & 0.771 \\ \hline Week 6 & 3.6 (1.1) & 3.8 (1.1) & 3.8 (1.1) & & 3.3 (1.0) & \\ \hline
**I found this product very cumbersome/awkward to use** & & & & & \\ \hline Baseline & 2.1 (1.3) & 0.795 & 2.3 (1.6) & 0.438 & 1.8 (0.4) & 0.444 \\ \hline Week 6 & 2.0 (1.4) & 1.7 (1.3) & & 2.5 (1.6) & & \\ \hline
**I felt very confident using this product** & & & & & \\ \hline Baseline & 3.6 (1.2) & 0.375 & 3.5 (1.4) & 0.125 & 3.7 (1.0) & 0.842 \\ \hline Week 6 & 4.0 (1.2) & 4.3 (0.8) & & 3.5 (1.5) & & \\ \hline
**I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this product** & & & & \\ \hline Baseline & 2.3 (1.1) & 0.125 & 1.8 (0.6) & 0.138 & 3.0 (1.4) & 0.501 \\ \hline Week 6 & 1.7 (0.9) & 1.3 (0.7) & & 2.3 (1.0) & & \\ \hline
**System Usability Scale total** & & & & & \\ \hline Baseline & 66.1 (12.2) & 0.061 & 65.0 (14.9) & 0.001 * & 67.9 (6.6) & 0.545 \\ \hline Week 6 & 72.3 (17.2) & 79.0 (10.9) & & 61.3 (20.8) & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Total values range from 0 to 100, with values for each item being scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The asterisk (*) indicates statistical significance (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: System Usability Scale (SUS) scores obtained from the patients. While analyzing the observational grid results from the patients, a success rate higher than 70% was achieved in all the tasks, with the task involving turning on the box obtaining the highest percentage of success (Task 1; 95.5%) (Figure 2A). Although the execution times varied among the different tasks, ranging from 17 s to 163 s (Figure 2B), overall, there were few errors, with no errors detected in some of the tasks (Figure 2C). The percentage of patients who needed help to perform the tasks ranged from 5 to 25% (Figure 2D). In the case of the healthcare professionals, the success rates were greater than 90% in all the included tasks (Figure 3A), with execution times ranging from 2 s for saving the data (Task 4) to almost 400 s for selecting the exercises to prescribe and the type of action required (Task 7) (Figure 3B). The task in which more errors were identified was the one involving opening