Table 3.
Evaluation IPAS.
| Online Only N = 22 * (Mean, SD) |
Blended N = 25 * (Mean, SD) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Technical issues (N, % yes) | 2 (8) | 9 (36) |
| I experienced IPAS as useful a | 2.8 (1.2) | 3.2 (1.1) |
| I experienced the role of physiotherapist as useful a | NA | 3.7 (0.7) |
| I experienced IPAS helpful in becoming more physically active a | 2.3 (1.1) | 3.3 (1.0) |
| The physiotherapist helped me to become more physically active a | NA | 3.5 (1.0) |
| I am satisfied about IPAS a | 2.7 (0.9) | 2.9 (0.9) |
| I am satisfied about the role of physiotherapist a | NA | 3.5 (0.8) |
| IPAS and the physiotherapist strengthen each other’s effect a | NA | 3.3 (0.8) |
| I would value IPAS on a scale from 1 till 10 b | 5.4 (2.5) | 6.1 (1.5) |
| I would recommend IPAS to other cancer survivors (N, %) Yes Maybe No |
3 (14) 15 (68) 4 (18) |
13 (52) 10 (40) 2 (8) |
* Online only: missing = 2 due to incomplete questionnaire; blended: missing = 3 due to incomplete questionnaire; a assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (fully disagree, disagree, not sure, agree, fully agree); b assessed on a 10-point scale.