Trust Components: An Analysis in The Development of Type 2 Diabetic Mellitus Mobile Application
Azween Abdullah
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The topic of the paper is interesting and relevant enough to the scope of this journal. Despite the satisfiable technical realization and analysis, the paper cannot be accepted in current form. The main issues are the length f the paper itself and its unclear structure, not suitable for journal paper. There are several aspects that should be considered and problems resolved before consideration for publication:
- Abstract is unclear and does not provide enough relevant information - should be extended and improved
- Overall paper sectioning and structure should be improved. In current form, it is difficult to follow. Introduction should be shorter, while parts related to usability test should be elsewhere
- Too long text about related research, especially in tables. The table representation should be more compact, maintaining only the crucial information
- Figure text should be enlarged
- Authors should really re-consider writing the application-related part in much shorter form, as it currently resembles software project documentation, too many unnecessary details; not all these diagrams are really needed to be included
Overall, the text should be more compact, focusing on the research problem tackled and outcomes
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Abstract is unclear and does not provide enough relevant information - should be extended and improved
Response 1: The research team updated the abstract in relation to the aim of the research.
Point 2: Overall paper sectioning and structure should be improved. In current form, it is difficult to follow. Introduction should be shorter, while parts related to usability test should be elsewhere
Response 2: The research team improved the structure in Introuduction and also at the related section
Point 3: Too long text about related research, especially in tables. The table representation should be more compact, maintaining only the crucial information
Response 3: The aim of bring the Table 2. Previous Research because this is as a part of research funding project. So through this table the research funder will see the road map of our research. Related to the functionality of our app version 1 and to can be seen in Table 12. Mobile Application Features Comparison
Point 4: Figure text should be enlarged
Response 4: We changed the size of Figure Text
Point 5: Authors should really re-consider writing the application-related part in much shorter form, as it currently resembles software project documentation, too many unnecessary details; not all these diagrams are really needed to be included
Response 5: This documentation need to bring the design of diagram, because in previous research. The focus more concern in functionality. But after analysis, we also design the current architecture through designing diagram
Point 6: Overall, the text should be more compact, focusing on the research problem tackled and outcomes
Response 6: Updated
Note:
The purpose of this paper as a final output of our research fund project. We finish the project and start to submit this article since the beginning of September in Applied Science, MDPI and follow 3 rounds of revoewe process. This is the second time of our research team to submit (resubmit) this paper again in MDPI, previous submission two reviewer accept, only one want to revise. So that’s why editor encourage us to resubmit. We still have the history/ list of comment and suggestion from the previous reviewers. We are really appreciating all the suggestion and comment to support our work to be better. Thank you for the support.
Previous Development :
2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/5/2006,
2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/10/15/1820
Current Projects: Mobile Application and Smart Plate, We will integrate the mobile app with the smart diabetes app.
2022: https://github.com/wasim-abbas/Diabetes-Managment-System (Mobile Application)
2022: https://github.com/ssh5212/smart-plate (Smart Plate)
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
1- The first reference started as [5]. It is recommended that citations be sequential.
2- The article is considered sufficient as it basically covers a product development and its processes. However, as the researchers emphasized (Section 1.4 previous research) they can explain the difference from existing examples and the rationale for this research.
3- They can expand their future study predictions in the context of applications.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The first reference started as [5]. It is recommended that citations be sequential.
Response 1: We updated and follow based on the recommendation
Point 2: The article is considered sufficient as it basically covers a product development and its processes. However, as the researchers emphasized (Section 1.4 previous research) they can explain the difference from existing examples and the rationale for this research.
Response 2: The main purpose of this research article is for the report for research funding. So we want to provide the analysis from the previous version of our app (Version1) and the latest one (Version 2)
Point 3: They can expand their future study predictions in the context of applications.
Response 3: Section 6 explain our future development. Currently we are working on: Mobile App and Smart Plate. In the future we will Integrate all of our project to be Smart Diabetes Health System
Note:
The purpose of this paper as a final output of our research fund project. We finish the project and start to submit this article since the beginning of September in Applied Science, MDPI. This is the second time of our research team to submit (resubmit) this paper, previous submission two reviewer accept, only one want to revise. So that’s why editor encourage us to resubmit. We still have the history/ list of comment and suggestion from the previous reviewers. We are really appreciating all the suggestion and comment to support our work to be better. Thank you for the support.
Previous Development:
2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/5/2006,
2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/10/15/1820
Current Projects: Mobile Application and Smart Plate, We will integrate the mobile app with the smart diabetes app.
2022: https://github.com/wasim-abbas/Diabetes-Managment-System (Mobile Application)
2022: https://github.com/ssh5212/smart-plate (Smart Plate)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
In this study, the authors present an analysis of trust components for the development of a type-2 diabetes mobile application
The subject of the article is relevant and worthy of discussion.
The authors describe the development of the application and describe the acceptance tests carried out.
References are appropriate.
However, some aspects should be analyzed in more detail to improve the quality of the article.
The introduction section should be improved so that the motivation and objective of the work are clear.
It is unclear how relevant the "2.2. Android" section is to the work presented. Why Android and not iOS? I don't see the relevance of this section. Nor do I see the relevance of the section "2.3. Telehealth".
(Page 1) “Currently, the potential of mobile health applications to improve healthcare is very good, with at least half a million users making use of them [22]”. This statement is supported by a reference from 6 years ago. "Currently"?
(Page 1) to review “ … type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes [20]”.
(Pages 2 and 3) Section "1.2. Trust in Mobile Application" and section "1.3. Usability Test" address the use of mobile applications and their usability in a generic way, but these sections need to be better framed with the focus of the paper.
In section 4 the results of user acceptance testing are presented, but in the initial sections the authors always referred to usability tests. The terminology and language used needs to be harmonized. More information should also be presented about the questionnaires and questions that were used to determine the results presented.
In the abstract, the authors stated that "The results of the study resulted in three major focuses, namely application design, consisting of architecture, UI design, and benefits of the application; privacy, safety, and security; and finally trustworthiness and testing". However, in the acceptance tests and in the conclusions, several of these aspects do not seem to have been addressed (e.g., privacy, safety, security, …).
(Page 17) Figures 6 and 7 are difficult to read. You should consider changing the chart type.
The acronym "type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)" is defined in two different ways (pages 2 (4 times), 9) “… type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)”; (page 20) “ … type 2 diabetes (T2DM)”.
Other typos:
(Page 3) “… minimize failure.and can …”
(Page 4) “… Type 2 diabetes, At this stage, …”
(Page 18) ”… application testing stage (Table), which …”
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: However, some aspects should be analyzed in more detail to improve the quality of the article.
Response 1: We improve our paper based on the suggestion
Point 2: The introduction section should be improved so that the motivation and objective of the work are clear.
Response 2: We updated and improved section 1. Intoroduction and try to relate with other suggestion from other reviewer
Point 3: It is unclear how relevant the "2.2. Android" section is to the work presented. Why Android and not iOS? I don't see the relevance of this section. Nor do I see the relevance of the section "2.3. Telehealth".
Response 3: The main focus of our research is to develop the mobile app (Focus on Android). The research fund want to Help people in samcheok, Gangwon Province in terms of Diabetes Management. And the relevance is, we can provide telehealth by develop mobile app (focus on Android Ooperating system)
Point 4: (Page 1) “Currently, the potential of mobile health applications to improve healthcare is very good, with at least half a million users making use of them [22]”. This statement is supported by a reference from 6 years ago. "Currently"?
Response 4: Updated used Reference, [2] A. Żarnowski, M. Jankowski, M. Gujski. Use of Mobile Apps and Wearables to Monitor Diet, Weight, and Physical Activity: A CrossSectional Survey of Adults in Poland. Med Sci Monit. Sep, e-ISSN: 1643-3750, 2022, pp.1-18
Point 5: (Page 1) to review “ … type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes [20]”.
Response 5: Updated.
Point 6: (Pages 2 and 3) Section "1.2. Trust in Mobile Application" and section "1.3. Usability Test" address the use of mobile applications and their usability in a generic way, but these sections need to be better framed with the focus of the paper.
Response 6: Through this part, we actually want to explain the alignment and how to get the trust from user. We change and update the section. 1.2 Usability Test, and 1.3 Trust in Mobile Application
Point 7: In section 4 the results of user acceptance testing are presented, but in the initial sections the authors always referred to usability tests. The terminology and language used needs to be harmonized. More information should also be presented about the questionnaires and questions that were used to determine the results presented.
Response 7: Section 4 updated to Trust Evaluation.
Point 8: In the abstract, the authors stated that "The results of the study resulted in three major focuses, namely application design, consisting of architecture, UI design, and benefits of the application; privacy, safety, and security; and finally trustworthiness and testing". However, in the acceptance tests and in the conclusions, several of these aspects do not seem to have been addressed (e.g., privacy, safety, security, …).
Response 8: Updated the abstarct and follow the suggestion from all reviewers.
Point 9: (Page 17) Figures 6 and 7 are difficult to read. You should consider changing the chart type.
Response 9: Is it possible to use this one? Because this is a part of report of research fund. And we already send the progress report using this type of chart. Thank you
Point 10: The acronym "type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)" is defined in two different ways (pages 2 (4 times), 9) “… type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)”; (page 20) “ … type 2 diabetes (T2DM)”.
Response 10: Updated to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)
Point 11: (Page 3) “… minimize failure.and can …”
Response 11: Updated
Point 12: (Page 4) “… Type 2 diabetes, At this stage, …”
Response 12: Updated
Point 13: (Page 18) ”… application testing stage (Table), which …”
Response 13: Updated
Note:
The purpose of this paper as a final output of our research fund project. We finish the project and start to submit this article since the beginning of September in Applied Science, MDPI. This is the second time of our research team to submit (resubmit) this paper, previous submission two reviewer accept, only one want to revise. So that’s why editor encourage us to resubmit. We still have the history/ list of comment and suggestion from the previous reviewers. We are really appreciating all the suggestion and comment to support our work to be better. Thank you for the support.
Previous Development :
2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/5/2006,
2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/10/15/1820
Current Projects: Mobile Application and Smart Plate, We will integrate the mobile app with the smart diabetes app.
2022: https://github.com/wasim-abbas/Diabetes-Managment-System (Mobile Application)
2022: https://github.com/ssh5212/smart-plate (Smart Plate)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
1. Please explain"Trust" related to the research
2. Some sections have too much theory content. Need to related the theory content to the actual research. This is a major problem with the paper.
3. Contributions and significance of the research is not clear or innovative. What can others learn from your research.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: Please explain"Trust" related to the research
Response 1: The aim of this research is to help people to manage diabetes, especially people in Samcheok, Gangwon. Because research supported by "Regional Innovation Strategy (RIS)" through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(MOE)(2022RIS-005). Through this research we want to get also some Trust from the people when they are using our application while their manage their glucose level.
Researcher bring some theoretical/ literature review on how we can see the Trust components. The related part of “Trust” in our research
1.2 Usability Test
1.3 Trust in Mobile Application
Table 9. Trust components in mobile application development
Table 10. Trust Factors
Figure 6. User Trust Evaluation for Mobile application Version 1
Figure 7. User Trust Evaluation for Mobile application Version 2
Table 11. Demographic Results for Trust Evaluation Mobile Application Version 1
Table 12. Demographic Results for Trust Evaluation Mobile Application Version 2
Point 2: Some sections have too much theory content. Need to related the theory content to the actual research. This is a major problem with the paper
Response 2: The researcg team updated the section and some part inside the sub chapter/ section also followed related comments from the other reviewer
Point 3: Contributions and significance of the research is not clear or innovative. What can others learn from your research.
Response 3: The aim of this research is to help people to manage diabetes, especially people in Samcheok, Gangwon. Because research supported by "Regional Innovation Strategy (RIS)" through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(MOE)(2022RIS-005). Through this research we want to get also some Trust from the people when they are using our application while their manage their glucose level.
Note:
The purpose of this paper as a final output of our research fund project. We finish the project and start to submit this article since the beginning of September in Applied Science, MDPI. This is the second time of our research team to submit (resubmit) this paper, previous submission two reviewer accept, only one want to revise. So that’s why editor encourage us to resubmit. We still have the history/ list of comment and suggestion from the previous reviewers. We are really appreciating all the suggestion and comment to support our work to be better. Thank you for the support.
Previous Development :
2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/5/2006,
2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/10/15/1820
Current Projects: Mobile Application and Smart Plate, We will integrate the mobile app with the smart diabetes app.
2022: https://github.com/wasim-abbas/Diabetes-Managment-System (Mobile Application)
2022: https://github.com/ssh5212/smart-plate (Smart Plate)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Despite that most of the comments by the reviewers have been addressed, the paper is still quite long, especially when it comes to number of diagrams and images, which can be further reduced. Additionally, please proofread one more time.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Despite that most of the comments by the reviewers have been addressed, the paper is still quite long, especially when it comes to number of diagrams and images, which can be further reduced. Additionally, please proofread one more time.
Response 1:
- Section 2.2 Android was deleted and merged with Section 2.1 Mobile Application in Healthcare.
- The researcher explained with a short introduction the development of healthcare mobile apps for platforms such as Android, iOS, Windows Mobile, Blackberry OS, and Symbian.
- Figures 6 and 7 changed to the bar chart model (40 participants).
- This article has been proofread by Prof. Dr. Tini Mogea, a Professor of English Education at Manado State University (tinimogea@unima.ac.id).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
In this revision, the authors have tried to address some of the concerns given to them in the review.
The document has been revised, they correct some grammar and typos.
They improved some sections (e.g., abstract, Introduction, ...).
They have updated some references.
Globally, the manuscript shows improvements over the version previously presented.
However, I still have some questions that do not seem coherent/or well justified.
I understand that the application was developed for the Android OS, but I don't understand the relevance of the "2.2. Android" section. Why is this section relevant? It seems to be a generic section that could be in any other work that presents an Android app.
Some figures (e.g., 6, 7) are not easy to read.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: I understand that the application was developed for the Android OS, but I don't understand the relevance of the "2.2. Android" section. Why is this section relevant? It seems to be a generic section that could be in any other work that presents an Android app.
Response 1:
- Section 2.2 Android was deleted and merged with Section 2.1 Mobile Application in Healthcare.
- The researcher explained with a short introduction the development of healthcare mobile apps for platforms such as Android, iOS, Windows Mobile, Blackberry OS, and Symbian.
Point 2: Some figures (e.g., 6, 7) are not easy to read
Response 2: Figures 6 and 7 changed to the bar chart model (40 participants).
Note:
This article has been proofread by Prof. Dr. Tini Mogea, a Professor of English Education at Manado State University (tinimogea@unima.ac.id).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
All changes done.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: All changes done.
Response 1: There are some changes based on suggestion from the other reviewers
- Section 2.2 Android was deleted and merged with Section 2.1 Mobile Application in Healthcare.
- The researcher explained with a short introduction the development of healthcare mobile apps for platforms such as Android, iOS, Windows Mobile, Blackberry OS, and Symbian.
- Figures 6 and 7 changed to the bar chart model (40 participants).
Note:
This article has been proofread by Prof. Dr. Tini Mogea, a Professor of English Education at Manado State University (tinimogea@unima.ac.id).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authores present a paper entitled "Trust Components: An Analysis in The Development of Type-2 Diabetic Mellitus Mobile Application". Unfortunately I wasnt able to understant the meaning of your work.
Major concerns:
- The authors present two definitions of Diabetes in the first paragraph of the introduction. In my opinion, one of them is not correct. Please revise.
- The introduction is confusing, having several different definitions for the same thing. Please revise the entire section.
- Please revise the name and rational of section 2.1.
- Please revise section 2.2. There are some uncorrect afirmations.
- Please improve sections 3 and 4. Section 3 is useless and section 4 is confusing.
Minor concerns:
- Improve the English.
- Please improve the table 1 format. Table 1 is not referenced in the text!
- Please improve the table 2 format.
- In the first paragraph of section 1.3, the reference to table 4 should be table 3!
- I don't found any reference to table 4 in the text!
- Table 4 is related to mobile applications. However, its content is related to mobile devices in general!
- I don't found any reference to figure 2 in the text!
- I don't found any reference to figure 3 in the text!
- There are 2 tables with the name table 4!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
Point 1: The authors present a paper entitled "Trust Components: An Analysis in The Development of Type-2 Diabetic Mellitus Mobile Application". Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to understand the meaning of your work.
Response 1: The aim of this research is, we want to develop an application by implementing Trust components like (convenience, attractiveness, simplicity, and information quality) for this application. At the of this research, we not only look for the product (Mobile App) but also evaluate (Trust of Customer/Patient) for our application.
Point 2: The authors present two definitions of Diabetes in the first paragraph of the introduction. In my opinion, one of them is not correct. Please revise.
Response 2:
Note: Updated
I. Introduction
1.1 Patients with Diabetes Mellitus
1.2 Usability Test
1.3 Previous Research
Point 3: The introduction is confusing, having several different definitions for the same thing. Please revise the entire section.
Response 3: Note: Updated
I. Introduction
1.1 Patients with Diabetes Mellitus
1.2 Usability Test
1.3 Previous Research
Point 4: Please revise the name and rational of section 2.1.
Response 4: 2.1 Mobile Application change to 2.1 Mobile Application in Healthcare
Point 5: Please revise section 2.2. There are some uncorrected affirmations.
Response 5: Updated
Point 6: Please improve sections 3 and 4. Section 3 is useless and section 4 is confusing.
Response 6:
Section 3 Research Methodology (How we conduct Research and Develop Application)
3.1 Research Method
3.2 Software Development Methodology
*Note (Updated):
- Figure 1. Research Method
- Table 6. Prototype Model
Section 4 System Design (Application Development and Evaluation)
4.1 User Interface
4.2 Benefits of Application and Trustworthiness
4.3 Unified Modelling Language and Design Testing (We are adding the Testing Results from 40 User/ Diabetic Patients)
*Note (Updated):
- Figure 5. User Acceptance Testing for Mobile application
Point 7: Please improve the table 1 format. Table 1 is not referenced in the text!
Response 7: Updated
Point 8: Please improve the table 2 format.
Response 8: Updated
Point 9: In the first paragraph of section 1.3, the reference to table 4 should be table 3!
Response: Updated
Point 10: I don't found any reference to table 4 in the text!
Response 10: Updated
Point 11: Table 4 is related to mobile applications. However, its content is related to mobile devices in general!
Response 11:Table 4. Characteristics of Mobile Application change to Table 4. Application Classification in Healthcare
Point 12: I don't found any reference to figure 2 in the text!
Response 12: For figure 2, we have designed this figure, not from another researcher or author
Point 13: I don't found any reference to figure 3 in the text!
Response 13:Update name of Figure 3 must be Prototype Model (Reference: [34] S. R. Joshua and T Mogea, “Analysis and Design of Service Oriented Architecture Based in Public Senior High School Academic Information System”, 2017, IEEE Xplore pp. 180-186. (Delete Already)
Point 14: There are 2 tables with the name table 4!
Response 14:
List of Table
Table 1. Comparison of the Differences between DM Type 1 and 2
(Updated from Table 1. Diabetes Type 1 and 2).
Table 2. Usability Level Measurement (Updated from Table 2. Comparison of Each Method).
Table 3. Previous Journal.
Table 4. Application Classification in Healthcare
Table 5. Android Characteristics
Table 6 Telehealth Operational Definition
Table 7. Prototype Model
Table 8. Design Application. (Updated from Table 4 to Table 8)
Table 9. Potential Benefits of the Application.
(Updated from Table 5 to Table 9)
Table 10. Potential Benefits of the Application.
(Updated from Table 6 to Table 10)
Table 11. Testing Factors.
(Updated from Table 7 to Table 11)
Note:
Note (Previous Development):
2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/5/2006,
2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/10/15/1820
Current Project (Diabetes Mobile App and Smart Plate) In Next project we will integrate all of these projects to help Patients:
Mobile Application: https://github.com/wasim-abbas/Diabetes-Managment-System
Smart Plate: https://github.com/ssh5212/smart-plate
The number of Diabetes Patients in Research:
2021: 20 Patients
2022: 40 Patients
Ongoing: 60-80 Patients
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
To help patients with type 2 diabetes, this paper adopts the method of prototype development to develop a mobile application to monitor the user's exercise status, food intake, and sleep status to help users better monitor their health status. In the process of application development, the trust elements such as usability, attractiveness, and information quality are taken into account to make the application more trustworthy.
Strengths and weaknesses:
Strengths:
(1) This paper develops a mobile application to monitor the user's exercise status, food intake, and sleep status to help patients with type 2 diabetes better monitor their health status, which is meaningful work.
(2) In the process of application development, this paper takes into account some trust elements comprehensively to make this application more trustworthy, which is meaningful and helpful to software development.
(3) This paper is easy to read and understand.
Weaknesses:
(1) It is difficult to identify which disadvantages belong to which methods in Table 2. I suggest increasing the line spacing or adding a line to improve the identification. And it is also difficult to identify which variables belong to which factors in Table 7.
(2) There is a spelling error in line 124. Which should be As, not TAs.
(3) The text in the Figures is blurred, so I suggest changing it to vector images.
(4) The research on trustworthiness has been mature. Trustworthiness should contain a number of trust elements, in addition to the usability and information quality mentioned in the paper. This paper should also consider security/safety, survivability, and other aspects. The best way is that the new version of app should add the Quantitative assessment function to give the Specific values for users to assess their healthiness.
The following articles are recommended to refer:
[1] Tao, H., Wu, H., Chen, Y.: An approach of trustworthy measurement allocation based on sub-attributes of software. Mathematics 7(3), 237 (2019)
(5) The innovation of this paper is weak, the paper spends a lot of paper space introducing the development process of mobile application but doesn’t reflect the innovation of the application. There are a lot of apps for detecting sleep status, food intake, and exercise status currently. This paper doesn’t reflect the advantage of this APP, and the article mentions the APP considers a lot of trust elements, such as usability, attractiveness, and information quality, but the UML and the Design test does not reflect how and why the application is considering these elements and compared with other applications will be more trustworthy. I suggest adding more experiments and data to support.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
Point 1: To help patients with type 2 diabetes, this paper adopts the method of prototype development to develop a mobile application to monitor the user's exercise status, food intake, and sleep status to help users better monitor their health status. In the process of application development, the trust elements such as usability, attractiveness, and information quality are taken into account to make the application more trustworthy.
Response 1: We are currently developing the application, and we inviting more participants from 20 to 40 and now from 40 to 60-80. In our next project, we are also developing a smart plate project that will be connected with this smart diabetic mobile application with some additional features based on the evaluation result of this version of the mobile app.
Point 2: It is difficult to identify which disadvantages belong to which methods in Table 2. I suggest increasing the line spacing or adding a line to improve the identification. And it is also difficult to identify which variables belong to which factors in Table 7
Response 2: Updated
Table 2. Comparison of Each Method.
Table 7 changes to Table 8. Testing Factors
Point 3: There is a spelling error in line 124. Which should be As, not TAs.
Response 3: Updated
Point 4: The text in the Figures is blurred, so I suggest changing it to vector images.
Response 4:
Figure 1 Figure 1. Scope of Telehealth Terminology [6].
Changed to Table 5 Telehealth Operational Definition
Figure 3. Prototype Model changed to Table 6. Prototype Model
List of Figure:
Figure 1. Research Method
Figure 2. Use Case Diagram of User Activities.
Figure 3. Activity Diagram of User Activities
Figure 4. Data Flow Diagram of User Registration
Figure 5. User Acceptance Testing for Mobile application
Point 5: The research on trustworthiness has been mature. Trustworthiness should contain a number of trust elements, in addition to the usability and information quality mentioned in the paper. This paper should also consider security/safety, survivability, and other aspects. The best way is that the new version of app should add the Quantitative assessment function to give the Specific values for users to assess their healthiness.The following articles are recommended to refer: [1] Tao, H., Wu, H., Chen, Y.: An approach of trustworthy measurement allocation based on sub-attributes of software. Mathematics 7(3), 237 (2019)
Response 5: We are adding the Testing Results from 40 User/ Diabetic Patients) at Section 4.3 Unified Modelling Language and Design Testing (Figure 5. User Acceptance Testing for Mobile application)
Point 6: The innovation of this paper is weak, the paper spends a lot of paper space introducing the development process of mobile application but doesn’t reflect the innovation of the application. There are a lot of apps for detecting sleep status, food intake, and exercise status currently. This paper doesn’t reflect the advantage of this APP, and the article mentions the APP considers a lot of trust elements, such as usability, attractiveness, and information quality, but the UML and the Design test does not reflect how and why the application is considering these elements and compared with other applications will be more trustworthy. I suggest adding more experiments and data to support.
Response 6: Information about Research:
- Version 1 (2021): 20 Patients.
- Version 2 (2022): 40 Patients.
- Version 3 (Ongoing): 60-80 Patients.
We are adding the Testing Results from 40 User/ Diabetic Patient) at Section 4.3 Unified Modelling Language and Design Testing (Figure 5. User Acceptance Testing for Mobile application)
Note:
Note (Previous Development):
2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/5/2006,
2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/10/15/1820
Current Project (Diabetes Mobile App and Smart Plate) In Next project we will integrate all of these projects to help Patients:
Mobile Application: https://github.com/wasim-abbas/Diabetes-Managment-System
Smart Plate: https://github.com/ssh5212/smart-plate
Number of Diabetes Patients in Research:
2021: 20 Patients
2022: 40 Patients
Ongoing: 60-80 Patients
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present a paper entitled "Trust Components: An Analysis in The Development of Type-2 Diabetic Mellitus Mobile Application". Unfortunately, the purpose of this work is not clear to me.
Major concerns:
- The Introduction needs improvements.
- The text is hard to read and follow.
- The information presented in Table 1 is not accurate.
- The interfaces used by the proposed application are usual. I can't identify any innovation on this matter.
- Please describe the application assessment procedure in detail.
- The results must be compared with other applications designed with the same purpose.
Minor concerns:
- Improve the English.
- I don't find any reference to most tables in the text!
Author Response
Point 1: The Introduction needs improvements.
Response 1:
Improved
1. Introduction
1.1 Mobile Health Application for Diabetes Mellitus
1.2 Trust in Mobile Application
1.3. Usability Test
1.4. Previous Research
Point 2: The text is hard to read and follow.
Response 2: Updated for Introduction and the Other Chapter, also article manuscript has been checked for grammar by Prof. Dr. Tini Mogea from Manado State University (Professor of English Literature and English Education) E-mail: tinimogea@unima.ac.id
Point 3: The information presented in Table 1 is not accurate.
Response 3: Table 1 has been removed
Point 4: The interfaces used by the proposed application are usual. I can't identify any innovation on this matter
Response 4:
The innovation mostly focuses on:
- There is no internet connection in Version 1, we provide an Internet Connection in version 2 (Functionality)
- All data is stored in mobile phones (version 1), and all data is stored in a server (Version) (Security and Privacy).
- Adjustment for Food intake in Version 2, because some people eat more than 3 times. Version 1 provides only a maximum of 3 (Usefulness).
- There is a step counter feature in Version 2, so customers no need to buy a wearable band to count the exercise. Version 1 data of exercise collected from wearable band and treadmill (Cost).
- Version 2 suggests a sleep time based on the evaluation/ result. Version 1 only provides evaluation/ result (Ease of Use).
Representations of the comparison between versions 1 and 2 are described in Figure 8. Mobile Application Features Comparison
Point 5: Please describe the application assessment procedure in detail.
Response 5:
Assessment of the application as a part of the Software Development Process 2. Customer Test Drives Mock-Up. The Detail Process described in
Figure 2. Application Development and Assessment Process, and Table 6. Application Development and Assessment Process, and Table 6. Application Development and Assessment
Point 6: The results must be compared with other applications designed with the same purpose.
Response 6:
Figure 6. User Acceptance Testing for Mobile application (Version 1), Figure 7. User Acceptance Testing for Mobile application (Version 2) is updated from Figure 5. User Acceptance Testing for Mobile applications. Figure 8. Mobile App Features Comparison
Point 7: Improve the English.
Response 7: The article manuscript has been checked for grammar by Prof. Dr. Tini Mogea from Manado State University (Professor of English Literature and English Education) E-mail: tinimogea@unima.ac.id
Point 8: I don't find any reference to most tables in the text!
Response 8:
Updated
List of Tables:
Table 1. Usability Level Measurement
Table 2. Previous Research
Table 3. Application Classification in Healthcare
Table 4. Android Characteristics
Table 5. Telehealth Operational Definition
Table 6. Application Development and Assessment
Table 7. Design Application.
Table 8. Potential Benefits of the Application.
Table 9. Trustworthiness in Mobile Application Development
Table 10. Testing Factors
Table 11. Demographic Results for Mobile Application Version 1
Table 12. Demographic Results for Mobile Application Version 2
Current Projects: Mobile Application and Smart Plate, We will integrate the mobile app with the smart diabetes app.
2022: https://github.com/wasim-abbas/Diabetes-Managment-System (Mobile Application)
2022: https://github.com/ssh5212/smart-plate (Smart Plate)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is the new version of the previous version, It has been modified much more. This manuscript can been accepted for publication.
Author Response
Point 1: I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Response 1: The article manuscript has been checked for grammar by Prof. Dr. Tini Mogea from Manado State University (Professor of English Literature and English Education) E-mail: tinimogea@unima.ac.id
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
