International Journal of Medical Informatics
Volume 77, Issue 9 , Pages 589-601 , September 2008

A methodology for shifting the focus of e-health support design onto user needs: A case in the homecare field

  • Sofie De Rouck

      Affiliations

    • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), IBBT-SMIT/MESO, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 Brussels, Belgium
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +32 2 4774761.
    • ,
  • An Jacobs

      Affiliations

    • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), IBBT-SMIT, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
    • ,
  • Mark Leys

      Affiliations

    • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), IBBT-SMIT/MESO, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 Brussels, Belgium

Received 5 March 2007 ,Revised 9 September 2007 ,Accepted 19 November 2007.

References 

  1. Haux R, Ammenwerth E, Herzog W, Knaup P. Health care in the information society. A prognosis for the year 2013. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2002;66:3–21
  2. Duke M, Street A. Hospital in the home: constructions of the nursing role—a literature review. J. Clin. Nurs. 2003;12:852–859
  3. Chae YM, Heon LJ, Hee HS, Ja KH, Hong JK, Uk WJ. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine in home health services for the elderly. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2001;61:167–173
  4. Clasen J. Social insurance—an outmoded concept of protection. In:  Clasen J editors. Social Insurance in Europe. Bristol: The Policy Press; 1997;p. 1–13
  5. Bilchik GS. The age wave. Trustee. 2000;53:14–17
  6. M. Chiasson, M. Reddy, B. Kaplan, E. Davidson, Expanding multi-disciplinary approaches to healthcare information technologies: what does information systems offer medical informatics?, Int. J. Med. Inform. (2006) (Epub ahead of print).
  7. Celler BG, Lovell NH, Basilakis J. Using information technology to improve the management of chronic disease. Med. J. Aust. 2003;179:242–246
  8. Wallace P, Haines A, Harrison R, Barber J, Thompson S, Jacklin P, et al. Joint teleconsultations (virtual outreach) versus standard outpatient appointments for patients referred by their general practitioner for a specialist opinion: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359:1961–1968
  9. Wallace P, Barber J, Clayton W, Currell R, Fleming K, Garner P, et al. Virtual outreach: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of joint teleconferenced medical consultations. Health Technol. Assess. 2004;8:1–127(last visited on 06/05/2007) http://www.hta.nhsweb.nhs.uk/fullmono/mon850.pdf
  10. Whitten PS, Mair FS, Haycox A, May CR, Williams TL, Hellmich S. Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. BMJ. 2002;324:1434–1437
  11. Roine R, Ohinmaa A, Hailey D. Assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of the literature. CMAJ. 2001;165:765–771
  12. Kirk S, Glendinning C. Trends in community care and patient participation: implications for the roles of informal carers and community nurses in the United Kingdom. J. Adv. Nurs. 1998;28:370–381
  13. Draper DA, Hurley RE, Lesser CS, Strunk BC. The changing face of managed care. Health Affairs. 2002;21:11–23
  14. Meystre S. The current state of telemonitoring: a comment on the literature. Telemed. J. E. Health. 2005;11:63–69
  15. Sclove R. Democracy and Technology. New York: Guilford Press; 1995;
  16. Ammenwerth E, Shaw NT. Bad health informatics can kill—is evaluation the answer?. Methods Inf. Med. 2005;44:1–3
  17. Ornetzeder M, Rohracher H. Using constructive technology assessment and lead user approaches in search for sustainable technology—theoretical considerations and practical implications. In: SPRU 40th Anniversary Conference—The Future of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy. University of Sussex, Brighton, September 11–13. 2006;
  18. Guston H, Sarewitz D. Real-time technology assessment. Technol. Soc. 2002;24:93–109
  19. Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J. Health Polit. Policy Law. 2000;25:1083–1120
  20. Leys M. Health care policy: qualitative evidence and health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;65:217–226
  21. Leys M. Health technology assessment: the contribution of qualitative research. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 2003;19:317–329
  22. Brender J. Trends in assessment of IT-based solutions in healthcare and recommendations for the future. Int. J. Med Inform. 1998;52:217–227
  23. Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch TJ. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1989;
  24. Bijker WE, Law J. Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1994;
  25. Callon M. Society in the making: the study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In:  Bijker WE,  Hughes TP,  Pinch TJ editor. The Social Construction of Technical Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1987;p. 83–103
  26. Latour B, Woolgar S. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1979;
  27. Latour B. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1987;
  28. Rip A, Schot J. Identifying loci for influencing the dynamics of technological development. In:  Sorensen KH,  Williams R editor. Shaping Technology. Guiding Policy, Concepts Spaces and Tools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2002;p. 158–176
  29. Bjerknes G, Bratteteig T. User participation and democracy: a discussion of scandinavian research on system development. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 1995;7:73–98
  30. Schuler D, Namioka A. Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1993;
  31. Greenbaum JM, Kyng M. Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1991;
  32. Whyte WF. Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1991;
  33. S. Bødker, P. Ehn, D. Sjögren, Y. Sundblad, Co-operative Design—Perspectives on 20 Years with ‘the Scandinavian IT Design Model, CID’, Centre for User Oriented IT Design, Stockholm, 2000, pp. 1–9, http://cid.nada.kth.se/pdf/cid_104.pdf (last visited on 05/05/2007).
  34. Gallivan MJ, Keil M. The user-developer communication process: a critical case study. Inform. Syst. J. 2003;13:37–68
  35. Hwang MI, Thorn RG. The effect of user engagement on system success: a meta-analytical integration of research findings. Inf. Manage. 1999;35:229–236
  36. Damodaran L. User involvement in the systems design process—a practical guide for users. Behav. Inform. Technol. 1996;15:363–377
  37. Karlsen J, Andersen J, Birkely L, Oedegaard E. An empirical study of critical success factors in IT projects. Int. J. Med. 2006;3:297–311
  38. Baroudi J, Olson M, Ives B. An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Comm. ACM. 1986;29:232–238
  39. Kensing F, Blomberg J. Participatory design: issues and concerns. CSCW. 1998;7:167–185
  40. Kyng M, Mathiassen L. Computers and Design in Context. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1997;
  41. A. Jacobs, Sociological Practitioners Contributing to New Product Development: Mapping the Challenges, Sociol. Res. Online 9 (2004) [Serial Online] http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9-4/jacobs.html (last visited on 04/05/2007).
  42. Karat J. User centered design: quality or quackery?. Interactions. 1996;3:18–20
  43. Sanders E. From user-centred to participatory design approaches. In:  Frascara J editors. Design and the Social Sciences. New York: Taylor and Francis Books; 2002;p. 1–8
  44. von Hippel E. Perspective: user toolkits for innovation. J. Prod. Inn. Man. 2001;18:247–257
  45. Thomke S, von Hippel E. Customers as innovators: a new way to create value. HBR. 2002;80:74–81
  46. Freeman C. Chemical process plant: innovation and the world market. NIER. 1968;45:29–57
  47. Bridges JF, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 2007;23:30–35
  48. Schulze H, Brau H, Haasis S, Weyrich M, Rhatje T. Human-centered design of engineering applications: success factors from a case study in the automotive industry. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. 2005;15:421–443
  49. May C, Harrison R, Finch T, MacFarlane A, Mair F, Wallace P. Understanding the normalization of telemedicine services through qualitative evaluation. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2003;10:596–604
  50. Roback K, Herzog A. Home informatics in healthcare: assessment guidelines to keep up quality of care and avoid adverse effects. Technol. Health Care. 2003;11:195–206
  51. Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications—some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2001;64:39–56
  52. Lorenzi NM, Riley RT, Blyth AJ, Southon G, Dixon BJ. Antecedents of the people and organizational aspects of medical informatics: review of the literature. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 1997;4:79–93
  53. Kaplan B, Brennan PF, Dowling AF, Friedman CP, Peel V. Toward an informatics research agenda: key people and organizational issues. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2001;8:235–241
  54. Berg M. Patient care information systems and health care work: a sociotechnical approach. Int. J. Med. Inform. 1999;55:87–101
  55. Berg M, Aarts J, van der LJ. ICT in health care: sociotechnical approaches. Methods Inf. Med. 2003;42:297–301
  56. Berg M, Langenberg C, Van de Burg I, Kwakkernaat J. Considerations for sociotechnical design: experiences with an electronic patient record in a clinical context. Int. J. Med. Inform. 1998;52:243–251
  57. Aarts J, Gorman P. IT in health care: sociotechnical approaches “To Err is System”. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2007;76(Suppl. 1):1–3
  58. Wouters R, Paquay L, De Vliegher K, Debaillie R, Geys L. KIT-diagnosestudie—Verpleegkundige kerninterventies in de thuiszorg volgens medische pathologieën. Onderzoeksrapport. 2005;347.04.1:1–64
  59. DeCoster VA. Challenges of type 2 diabetes and role of health care social work: a neglected area of practice. Health Soc. Work. 2001;26:26–37
  60. M. Heptworth, J. Harrison, N. James, The information needs of people with multiple sclerosis, Thesis, Department of Information Science, Loughborough University, 2002.
  61. Boeije HR, Bromberger N, Duijnstee MSH, Grypdonck MH, Pool A. In relatie tot MS: zorgafhankelijke mensen met multiple sclerose en hun partners. Utrecht: NIWZ Uitgeverij; 1999;
  62. Brassington JC, Marsh NV. Neuropsychological aspects of multiple sclerosis. Neuropsychol. Rev. 1998;8:43–77
  63. Thornton HB, Lea SJ. An investigation into needs of people living with multiple sclerosis, and their families, disability. Handicap Soc. 1992;7:321–338
  64. J. Wollin, H. Dale, N. Spencer, A. Walsh, The informational needs of the newly diagnosed person with multiple sclerosis and their family, Int. J. MS Care [Serial Online] 2 (2000) http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00001600/01/1600.pdf (last visited on 15/02/07).
  65. Hiscock J, Legard R, Snape D. Listening to Diabetes Service Users: Qualitative Findings for the Diabetes National Service Framework. National Centre for Social Research; 2001;
  66. Mazzi CP, Kidd M. A framework for the evaluation of Internet-based diabetes management. J. Med. Internet Res. 2002;4:e1
  67. Beeney LJ, Bakry AA, Dunn SM. Patient psychological and information needs when the diagnosis is diabetes. Patient Educ. Couns. 1996;29:109–116
  68. Heptworth M, Harrison J. A survey of the information needs of people with multiple sclerosis. Health Inform. J. 2004;10:49–69
  69. Loader BD, Muncer S, Burrows R, Pleace N, Nettleton S. Medicine on the line? Computer-mediated social support and advice for people with diabetes. Int. J. Soc. Welf. 2002;11:53–65
  70. Zrebiec JF, Jacobson AM. What attracts patients with diabetes to an internet support group? A 21-month longitudinal website study. Diabet. Med. 2001;18:154–158
  71. McPherson SL, Joseph D, Sullivan E. The benefits of peer support with diabetes. Nurs. Forum. 2004;39:5–12
  72. Peters TJ, Somerset M, Campbell R, Sharp DJ. Variables associated with attendance at, and the perceived helpfulness of, meetings for people with multiple sclerosis. Health Soc. Care Community. 2003;11:19–26
  73. Callaghan A, Williams D. Living with diabetes: issues for nursing practice. J. Adv. Nurs. 1994;20:132–139
  74. Anonymous, Needs for the recently diagnosed. Report and recommendations of the Listening Project, Diabetes UK, Care Interventions Team, London, 2002.
  75. Hakim EA, Bakheit AM, Bryant TN, Roberts MW, McIntosh-Michaelis SA, Spackman AJ, et al. The social impact of multiple sclerosis—a study of 305 patients and their relatives. Disabil. Rehabil. 2000;22:288–293
  76. M. Gedizlioglu, H. Mavioglu, F. Uzunel, C. Pinar, M. Oguz, A. Sagduyu, B. Özer, Y. Zorlu, E. Idiman, H. Korkmaz, Impact of multiple sclerosis on family and employment: a retrospective study in the Aegean district of Turkey, Int. J. MS Care [Serial online]. 2 (2000) http://www.mscare.org/cmsc/images/pdf/ijmsc-2000-oct.pdf (last visited on 15/02/07).
  77. Minderhoud JM. Multiple Sclerose: een boek voor mensen met multiple sclerose, familie, behandelaars en wetenschappers. Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum; 2002;
  78. Greenhalgh J, Ford H, Long AF, Hurst K. The MS Symptom and Impact Diary (MSSID): psychometric evaluation of a new instrument to measure the day to day impact of multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry. 2004;75:577–582
  79. Greenhalgh J. An assessment of the feasibility and utility of the MS Symptom and Impact Diary (MSSID). Qual. Life Res. 2005;14:1363–1374
  80. Beaumont JG. The MS Symptom and Impact Diary (MSSID): psychometric evaluation of a new instrument to measure the day to day impact of multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry. 2004;75:526–527
  81. Johnson KL, Yorkston KM, Klasner ER, Kuehn CM, Johnson E, Amtmann D. The cost and benefits of employment: a qualitative study of experiences of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2004;85:201–209
  82. Weiss T, Fels D, Treviranus J. Telework and video-mediated communication: importance of real-time, interactive communication for workers with disabilities. In: CSUN's 1999 Conference Proceedings On-Line Now. The Center on Disabilities, Los Angeles, March 15–20. 1999;
  83. Broom D, Whittaker A. Controlling diabetes, controlling diabetics: moral language in the management of diabetes type 2. Soc. Sci. Med. 2004;58:2371–2382
  84. Klonoff DC. Diabetes and telemedicine: is the technology sound, effective, cost-effective, and practical?. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:1626–1628
  85. Ralston JD, Revere D, Robins LS, Goldberg HI. Patients’ experience with a diabetes support programme based on an interactive electronic medical record: qualitative study. BMJ. 2004;328:1159
  86. Rubin RR, Peyrot M. Psychological issues and treatments for people with diabetes. J. Clin. Psychol. 2001;57:457–478
  87. Jacobson I. Object-oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Adison Wesley, s.l.; 1992;
  88. I. Jacobson, Object oriented development in an industrial environment, in: Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA’87), 22 (1987) 183–191.
  89. A. Cockburn, Structuring use cases with goals, JOOP (1997) [Serial Online] http://members.aol.com/acockburn/papers/usecases.htm (lasted visited on 04/05/2007).
  90. Cockburn A. Use cases, ten years later. STQE. 2002;4:37–40
  91. Antón AI, Carter RA, Dagnino A, Dempster JH, Siege DF. Deriving goals from a use-case based requirements specification. Requir. Eng. 2004;6:63–67
  92. Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Boston: Addison-Wesley; 1999;
  93. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994;
  94. Kaplan B. Addressing organizational issues into the evaluation of medical systems. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 1997;4:94–101
  95. Currie LM. Evaluation frameworks for nursing informatics. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2005;74:908–916
  96. Ammenwerth E, De Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care: trends in evaluation research 1982–2002. Methods Inf. Med. 2005;44:44–56
  97. Ammenwerth E, Graber S, Herrmann G, Burkle T, Konig J. Evaluation of health information systems—problems and challenges. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2003;71:125–135
  98. Berg M. Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2001;64:143–156
  99. Lacey G, MacNamara S. User involvement in the design and evaluation of a smart mobility aid. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2000;37:709–723
  100. Fujimoto M, Miyazaki K, von TN. Complex systems in technology and policy: telemedicine and telecare in Japan. J. Telemed. Telecare. 2000;6:187–192
  101. Whitten PS, Allen A. Analysis of telemedicine from an organizational perspective. Telemed. J. 1995;1:203–213
  102. Southon G, Sauer C, Dampney K. Lessons from a failed information systems initiative: issues for complex organisations. Int. J. Med. Inform. 1999;55:33–46
  103. Rondeau P, Ragu-Nathan T, Vonderembse M. How involvement, IS management effectiveness, and end-user computing impact IS performance in manufacturing firms. Inform. Manage. 2006;43:93–107
  104. Fakun D, Greenough R. An exploratory study into whether to or not to include users in the development of industrial hypermedia applications. Requir. Eng. 2004;9:57–66
  105. Noyes J, Starr A, Frankish C. User involvement in the early stages of the development of an aircraft warning system. Behav. Inform. Techn. 1996;15:67–75
  106. J. Bergsten, Scenarios in systems design—catalysts for communication and reflection, unpublished work, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, 2003 http://www.cs.chalmers.se/idc/ituniv/student/2003/portfolior/it3bejo/public_html/publicerat/scenarios.pdf (last visited on 15/02/07).
  107. Agostini A, De Michelis G, Susani M. From user participation to user seduction in the design of innovative user-centered systems, designing cooperative systems. Use of theories and models. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP’2000). Sophia Antipolis, France, May 23–26. 2000;
  108. Gallant LM. An etnography of communication approach to mobile product testing. Pers. Ubiquit. Comp. 2006;10:325–332
  109. Barki H, Hartwick J. Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitude. MIS Quart. 1994;18:59–82
  110. Barki H, Hartwick J. Rethinking the concept of user involvement. MIS Quart. 1989;13:53–63

PII: S1386-5056(07)00198-0

doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.11.004

International Journal of Medical Informatics
Volume 77, Issue 9 , Pages 589-601 , September 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution