4 Guide development for eHealth interventions targeting people with a low socioeconomic position 81 Requirement Description Quote Service Suitability for different professionals Ensuring accessibility and usefulness for different groups of professionals (e.g., developers and healthcare providers) “Well, I do think that it would appeal to healthcare practitioners toward people they see in their daily practice.” [P7] Long term viability Keeping the website up to date, maintained and disseminated “This is one of the most challenging aspects; you can make a beautiful website, but who is going to visit it? Who knows you are there? Who is going to manage it? What is the business case? It is a beautiful initiative, but an initiative without a business case.” [P1] Dynamic community hub The guide should serve as a platform for professionals to dynamically contribute and update information “Imagine, I have a barrier, where else can I add it?” [P11] Focus on implementation Improve the focus on implementation as it is a crucial component of intervention development “It is part of its development, but it is also a huge success factor for the use of eHealth, and how you implement it is most certainly different for the low SEP.” [P5] General Enhance credibility Demonstrating the credibility of the website “Yes, maybe it could be a little clearer who all this information comes from. Just you as researchers are connected to the university, things like that.” [P2] 4.3.2.3 Quantitative evaluation of the prototype As part of the second interview, the participants evaluated the prototype of the guide across various dimensions (Table 4.3). All participants completed the questionnaire; however, only the data of 9 out of 10 participants were included in the analysis. The exclusion of 1 participant was due to the questionnaire being modified for clarity and comprehensiveness after receiving feedback from the first participant. Table 4.3 presents an overview of the participant responses to the questionnaire. In terms of content (e.g., barriers and facilitators), participants expressed positive opinions regarding its understandability (89%, 8/9 positive), usefulness (100%, 9/9 positive), and level of interest (100%, 9/9 positive). On the service level, the website was found to be credible (56%, 5/9 positive) and useful (67%, 6/9 positive), and participants would recommend it to a colleague (100%, 9/9 positive). However, most participants did mention they would not want to regularly use the guide (33%, 3/9 positive) since, according to the participants, most of the needed information could be obtained in 1 visit. Table 4.2 Continued
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw