Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 1;22:173. doi: 10.1186/s12877-022-02831-z

Table 3.

Feasibility and engagement data

Feasibility Engagement (N = 21)
Participation rate, n (%) Non-use attrition (T1), n (%) 3 (14.3)
    All participants 50 (78.1) Intervention dropout (< 5 lessons), n (%) 3 (14.3)
    Referred participants 22 (81.0) Usage at T1 ,Yes, n (%) # 7 (38.9)
    Volunteers 28 (76.0) Weeks until discontinuation, Mdn (IQR) * 2 (5)
Non-eligibility rate, n (%) 7 (14.0) Logins into iSupport (T0-T1), Mdn (IQR) # 6 (11.3)
Study dropout at T1, n (%) Lessons visited, Mdn (IQR) # 13 (16.5)
    All participants 7 (16.7) Average attendance rate, M (SD) # 53.7 (34.4)
    Intervention arm 6 (28.6) Visits per module, n (%) #
    Control arm 1 (4.8)     Module 1 16 (88.9)
Study dropout at T2, n (%)     Module 2 15 (83.3)
    All participants 4 (9.5)     Module 3 13 (72.2)
    Intervention arm 4 (19.0)     Module 4 14 (77.8)
    Control arm 0     Module 5 11 (61.1)
Retention rate (from T0 to T2), n (%) Mood rating function
    All participants 31 (73.8)     Used, Yes, n (%) # 17 (94.4)
    Intervention arm 11 (52.4)     Visits, Mdn (IQR) # 1 (.3)
    Control arm 20 (95.2) Printout function, Used, n (%) # 17 (94.4)

Abbreviations: N number of participants, M mean, Mdn median, IQR interquartile range, T1 3 months after baseline, T2 6 months after baseline. *N = 11 (excluding participants not registered, and those still using iSupport at T1); #N = 18 (excluding not-registered participants)