# MobiDabet: Mobile Telemonitoring System for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2 DM)
## 4 Preliminary Usability Assessment of the Proposed System
### Preliminary Usability Assessment Results
#### 4.3.1 Results of the Preliminary Usability Assessment of the System Based on a Field Study
This instrument was applied to 4 physicians, 2 nutritionists, and 7 patients. The measurement scale of the questionnaire was defined as follows [17]:  
\[ \begin{array}{ccccc}0&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9\\ \text{Not satisfactory}&&\text{Acceptable}&&\text{Satisfactory}\end{array} \]  
The results of each user profile are described below. Table 5 presents the average result obtained for each category of the QUIS 7.0 satisfaction questionnaire [17] assessed by physician users. The results are ordered from the highest grade to the lowest grade. All categories of the questionnaire obtained an average score of 8.28. According to the measurement scale of the questionnaire, the application for physician users is considered within a satisfactory level. On the other hand, the results obtained from the questionnaire based on the responses of the nutritionists show an average score of 7.56 (see Table 6). According to the measurement scale of the questionnaire, the web application regarding nutritionist users is considered within a satisfactory level. Finally, Table 7 shows the average result obtained for each category of the questionnaire based on the responses of the patient users. In this case, the questionnaire categories obtained an average grade of 7.33. Therefore, from the perspective of patient users, the web application of our system is considered at a satisfactory level. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Position** & **Section** & **Average Score** & **Total Average Score** \\ \hline
1 & Terminology and Information & 8.42 & \\
2 & Screen & 8.25 & \\
3 & System capabilities & 7.6 & \\
4 & General reactions & 7.58 & \\
5 & Usability and user interface & 6.8 & \\
6 & Learning capacity & 6.75 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Results of Instrument 2, nutritionist profile. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Position** & **Section** & **Average Score** & **Total Average Score** \\ \hline
1 & Screen & 8.75 & \\
2 & Terminology and Information & 8.54 & \\
3 & System capabilities & 8.25 & \\
4 & Learning capacity & 8.17 & \\
5 & Usability and user interface & 8.15 & \\
6 & General reactions & 7.83 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results of Instrument 2, physician profile. Concerning the presented results, it is observed that physician users provided a satisfactory rating of 8.28 and nutritionist users and patients also provided a satisfactory rating of 7.56 and 7.33, respectively, to the system. Among the characteristics with satisfactory qualification where all types of users coincide are terminology and information and the screen section. On the other hand, the characteristics rated acceptable to satisfactory where all users coincide are usability and user interface and learning capacity. **Results of Instrument 3. **  
The results of Instrument 3 show the quality of the system based on the questionnaire introduced previously [18], which evaluates three quality attributes: content, navigation, and presentation. The measurement scale used in this questionnaire is 1 to 5 on the Likert scale: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}
**Strongly Disagree** & **Disagree** & **Neutral** & **Agree** & **Strongly Agree** \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ \end{tabular}   
The results of each user profile are described below. Table 8 presents the results obtained from the responses of physician users, registering an average rating of 4.74. Based on the measurement scale, physician users generally agree on all three attributes. On the other hand, Table 9 shows the results obtained for each attribute of the questionnaire regarding nutritionist users. The nutritionists assigned an average rating of 4.37. In all three attributes, nutritionists agree. Concerning patient users, the results obtained show an average rating of 4.0, according to the measurement scale (see Table 10). The attributes that obtained a rating on which users match are presentation and content. However, the navigation attribute was the lowest rating with a score that is aligned to neutral opinion.