Search Results (1 to 6 of 6 Results)
Download search results: CSV END BibTex RIS
Skip search results from other journals and go to results- 3 JMIR mHealth and uHealth
- 2 JMIR Diabetes
- 1 JMIR Research Protocols
- 0 Journal of Medical Internet Research
- 0 Medicine 2.0
- 0 Interactive Journal of Medical Research
- 0 iProceedings
- 0 JMIR Human Factors
- 0 JMIR Medical Informatics
- 0 JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
- 0 JMIR Serious Games
- 0 JMIR Mental Health
- 0 JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies
- 0 JMIR Preprints
- 0 JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology
- 0 JMIR Medical Education
- 0 JMIR Cancer
- 0 JMIR Challenges
- 0 JMIR Biomedical Engineering
- 0 JMIR Data
- 0 JMIR Cardio
- 0 JMIR Formative Research
- 0 Journal of Participatory Medicine
- 0 JMIR Dermatology
- 0 JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting
- 0 JMIR Aging
- 0 JMIR Perioperative Medicine
- 0 JMIR Nursing
- 0 JMIRx Med
- 0 JMIRx Bio
- 0 JMIR Infodemiology
- 0 Transfer Hub (manuscript eXchange)
- 0 JMIR AI
- 0 JMIR Neurotechnology
- 0 Asian/Pacific Island Nursing Journal
- 0 Online Journal of Public Health Informatics
- 0 JMIR XR and Spatial Computing (JMXR)
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
On Track scored 68, which is considered a “D” grade (eg, scores between 60 and 69); my Sugr received a score of 55, which is an “F” grade (eg, scores less than 60). User performance was better for On Track compared to my Sugr: more efficient (mean time 6.6, SD 3.7 minutes versus mean time 7.5, SD 3.7 minutes, P
Demographics, technology use, diabetes factors, and motivation were not predictors of user satisfaction as assessed by the SUS for the tested apps (Table 3).
JMIR Diabetes 2019;4(2):e11462
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section