## 3 Results
### Usability and User Experience Evaluation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline  & **n** & **Mean (SD)** \\ \hline I think that I would like to use this website frequently & 24 & 4.1 (0.8) \\ \hline I found this product unnecessarily complex & 24 & 2.4 (1.0) \\ \hline I thought this product was easy to use & 24 & 3.7 (1.3) \\ \hline I think that I would need assistance to be able to use this product & 24 & 2.5 (1.2) \\ \hline I found the various functions in this product were well integrated & 24 & 4.5 (0.7) \\ \hline I thought there was too much inconsistency in this product & 24 & 3.3 (1.1) \\ \hline I would imagine that most people could learn to use this product very quickly & 24 & 3.6 (1.1) \\ \hline I found this product very cumbersome/awkward to use & 23 & 1.8 (0.9) \\ \hline I felt very confident using this product & 24 & 3.6 (1.1) \\ \hline I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this product & 24 & 2.6 (1.4) \\ \hline System Usability Scale total & 23 & 68.9 (12.2) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Total values range from 0 to 100, with values for each item being scored on a 5-point Likert scale.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: System Usability Scale (SUS) scores obtained from the healthcare professionals. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Patients** & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & **Overall (n = 22)** & **Home Study (n = 14)** & **Clinical Setting Study (n = 8)** & **Professionals (n = 24)** \\ \hline Ease of use & 1.3 (1.2) & 1.1 (1.4) & 1.6 (0.7) & 1.4 (1.2) \\ \hline Satisfaction with its use & 1.9 (0.8) & 1.7 (0.8) & 2.3 (0.7) & 1.7 (1.2) \\ \hline Learning ease & 1.8 (1.1) & 1.9 (0.5) & 1.6 (1.8) & 1.5 (0.9) \\ \hline Achievement of expected results (e.g., wanted to write a text and did it) & 1.7 (1.4) & 2.0 (1.2) & 1.3 (1.6) & 1.5 (1.1) \\ \hline Similarity in the operation mode in the different tasks (such the way to confirm an action always being the same) & 1.6 (1.1) & 1.5 (1.1) & 1.7 (1.3) & 0.8 (1.6) \\ \hline Possibility of interacting in various ways (e.g., keyboard, touch, or voice) & 0.7 (1.8) & 0.7 (1.8) & 0.6 (1.9) & 1.4 (1.4) \\ \hline Understanding of the messages presented (e.g., written or sound) & 1.5 (1.4) & 1.6 (1.1) & 1.4 (2.0) & 0.6 (1.6) \\ \hline The application’s responsiveness to your actions & 1.8 (1.1) & 1.8 (1.4) & 1.9 (0.6) & 1.5 (1.3) \\ \hline Knowledge of what was happening in the application during use & 1.5 (1.5) & 1.5 (1.0) & 1.5 (2.3) & 1.6 (0.5) \\ \hline Overall satisfaction & 1.8 (1.2) & 1.9 (0.7) & 1.5 (1.7) & 1.8 (0.8) \\ \hline Total ICF-US I & 15.5 (9.3) & 15.5 (7.3) & 15.4 (12.8) & 13.4 (7.1) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Total ICF-US I values range from \(-\)30 to 30, with each item ranging from \(-\)3 to 3.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: International Classification of Functioning-Based Usability Scale (ICF-US I) scores obtained from the patients and professionals. the \"Add new patient\" menu on the dashboard and creating a new patient profile (Task 3) (Figure 3C). Finally, professionals needed different degrees of help depending on the task while performing it (Figure 3D). Finally, regarding usability, a total of 8.1 \(\pm\) 3.7 training weeks were performed, with higher values in the home setting than in the clinical setting (8.8 \(\pm\) 4.2 vs. 6.9 \(\pm\) 2.5 weeks). Notably, only the first six weeks were mandatory, with the following six weeks being optional. The percentage of completed weeks was 60.9 \(\pm\) 23.4 (55.5 \(\pm\) 19.6 and 70.23 \(\pm\) 27.7 for the home study and clinical setting study, respectively), in which a total of 14.5 \(\pm\) 11.9 total accesses were performed (17.4 \(\pm\) 14.0 for the home study and 9.5 \(\pm\) 4.4 for the clinical setting study, respectively), with four patients (18.2%) having accessed the application more than two times per week, all of whom were enrolled in the home study.