5 113 PERSONALIZED MONITORING AND FEEDBACK “very much” (100), except for items 3, 10, 16 (categorical variables) and item 17 (open question). Because of the small number of participants (N = 5), the continuous data was converted to an ordinal level of measurement. Scores between 0 and 20 were converted to “strongly disagreed”, scores between 21 and 40 to “disagree”, scores between 41 and 60 to “neutral”, scores between 61-80 to “agree”, scores between 81 and 100 “very much agree”. 5.2.2.3.3 Twente engagement with Ehealth technologies scale We used the Twente engagement with Ehealth technologies scale (TWEETS) to measure participants’ engagement with recording their risk-relevant features (Kelders et al., 2020). TWEETS consist of nine items on a five-point Likert-scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree). TWEETS showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha 0.86 - 0.87), good divergent validity, and reasonable test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and predictive validity (Kelders et al., 2020). 5.2.2.3.4 Log data Log data was used to measure the burdensomeness of the ESM measurement and the extent to which participants completed their ESM measurement using their smartphone in their daily live (adherence). 5.2.2.4 Procedure After being informed about the study by their therapist (JWvdB) and providing written informed consent, a personalized questionnaire on the participant’s risk-relevant features was constructed by the participant and two of the authors (JWvdB, DCvdV). Participants were asked to fill out the questionnaire five times a day for two weeks. A link to their personalized questionnaire was send through a text message from a secured server system (RoQua; roqua.nl; Sytema & van der Krieke, 2013) at three-hour intervals, while considering the “normal daily routines”. If necessary, a reminder was sent after 15 minutes. The link to the questionnaire closed after 30 minutes. After two weeks, the ESM data was gathered. Results on fluctuations in and interrelations between risk-relevant features were drafted (by JB) in a personalized feedback report and discussed by each participants and their therapist (JWvdB). Additionally, data were collected during the ESM process through TWEETS, the online questionnaire, and with the use of log data. TWEETS was scored following the first day of monitoring (t1: expectations of engagement), after one week monitoring (t2: current engagement), and after finishing monitoring (t3: past engagement). The online questionnaire was completed after the last ESM measurement on day fourteen. Log data were collected after closing the opportunity to complete the last ESM measurement and the online questionnaire. Except for the patient who declined the invitation to participate in this study, all other six participated in a semi-structured interview by one
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw