Log Data Analysis

The results from the log file analysis for each case are presented next, a larger size of the charts can be found in the appendices (6.9).

Figure 6. Case 1 – Low adherence

Note. At the lower graph the left Y axis measures the duration and mean duration of sessions. The right Y axis measures the frequency of measurements completed, history opened and messages sent (highlighted in blue).

Figure 6 shows the results for case 1. In the upper graph each blue dot equals a measurement and its position in the Y axis refers to the time of the day it was sent. The X axis in all of the charts is divided by the log file ‘cases’ and the beginning of every week is marked by a number (1st to 9th). The irregular distance between each week number represents a higher or lower number of interactions with the technology (cases registered in the log file). At the lower graph, an overview of the activity is presented, the blue dots mark a session and its position in the left Y axis equals the duration of each.

Furthermore, completed measurements can be identified as green diamonds and their position in reference to the right Y axis equals the number of measurements performed at that session, naturally most of the sessions consisted of only one measurement being sent. The number of times the history feature was opened is marked with an ‘X’ and a dotted line, although it is worth noting that this was calculated as a simple sum of ‘open history’ cases within a session and without any rules based on time. Messages sent are marked as a red circle, its frequency can also be distinguished based on the right Y axis.

Figure 7. Case 2 – Adherence

Note. At the lower graph the left Y axis measures the duration and mean duration of sessions. The right Y axis measures the frequency of measurements completed, history opened and messages sent (highlighted in blue).

Figure 7 presents the results for the second case, where it can be appreciated a clear difference compared with case 1. For instance, in the upper graph the number of measurements and their time shows a higher consistency throughout the full pilot. At the lower graph, the activity is clearly richer in all of its features and with notorious spikes at several points.

The number of measurements completed can be better appreciated when compared to the previous case. This case also showed a high frequency in the interaction with the history function. The number of messages sent didn’t vary much between the pilot participants, this case shows four of them (two in a session, twice), notoriously matching a high duration of those sessions.

Figure 8. Case 3 – Adherence and high self-monitoring

Note. At the lower and middle graph the left Y axis measures the duration and mean duration of sessions. The right Y axis measures the frequency of measurements completed, history opened and messages sent (highlighted in blue).

Figure 8 shows the results for case 3. In the upper graph the consistency in the measurements is similar to the previous case. However, an extra chart (middle) is presented with an adjusted time span for the Y axis to better describe the multiple points during the day where this user conducted a measurement, some of them around midnight. In the overview shown at the

lower graph, the activity is somewhat similar to the previous case but with a higher number of

sessions under the five minute mark, as well as higher spikes in activity both in the duration of the sessions and the interaction with the history feature. Also note that the interaction with the technology (seen via the X axis) in the first week is way higher than the previous cases. The data on messages sent was similar to the previous case (two messages at two different sessions).

Table 6

Use and usage of content case comparison

Low adherence Adherence + High self-monitoring

Sessions

Total nr. of sessions 44 70 151

Nr. of days with at least 1 Session 41 60 62

% of days with iMediSense with at least 1 Session 66.13% 100% 100% Mean hour of first daily sessions 09:16:35 09:32:35 07:23:23 Mean duration of sessions 00:03:26 00:06:11 00:04:54 Total time spent in application 02:30:43 07:13:25 12:20:02

Measurements

Total measurements completed 42 60 136

Nr. of sessions with measurements completed 40 60 135 % of sessions with measurements completed 90.91% 85.71% 89.40% Mean duration of sessions with measurements

only a 00:02:49 00:03:03 00:03:39

Adherence b 62.90% 98.33% 100%

Mean hour of measurements 09:26:19 09:39:00 12:35:15 c

History

Nr. of sessions with history opened 5 62 38

% of sessions with history opened 11.36% 88.57% 25.17% Mean duration of sessions with history opened 00:05:41 00:06:36 00:08:11

Messages

Nr. of sessions with contact menu opened 7 6 16 % sessions with contact menu opened 15.91% 8.57% 10.60%

Messages sent 1 4 2

Mean duration of sessions with messages Sent 00:06:28 00:32:50 00:19:34

a

Sessions with ‘measurements completed’ but no ‘history opened’ and / or ‘message sent’

b

Adherence defined as compliance by the instructions given during the pilot to conduct ‘daily measurements’

c

Table 6 provides a comparison between all cases. Differences in the use and usage of content, as expected, emerged in this analysis. The total number of sessions increases across all cases. Cases 2 and 3 had at least one session every day of the pilot which didn’t occur in case 1. The mean hour of first daily sessions is lower for case 3 but this can be understood because the calculation included the sessions that occurred after midnight which for this analysis were already considered to count as a ‘new day’. There is also a clear difference in the total time spent in the application between all three cases, from two and a half hours to more than twelve hours of use in total. Regarding the measurements, the differences remain except that the percentage of sessions with measurements completed is virtually the same. Likewise, the mean time duration of sessions when only a measurement was completed in the sessions when history was not opened and / or a message was not sent is also really similar. Case 2 had a notoriously higher percentage of sessions when history was opened, but case 3 had the highest mean time duration of sessions when history was opened. Finally, all cases showed a ‘low’ usage of the contact menu.