Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Medicine2.0'10: Participatory development for human-centered and value-driven eHealth


Published on

"Participatory development for human-centered and value-driven eHealth" as presented at Medicine 2.0 in Maastricht

  • Be the first to comment

Medicine2.0'10: Participatory development for human-centered and value-driven eHealth

  1. 1. Participatory development forHuman centered and Value-driven eHealth J (Lisette) van Gemert-Pijnen Center for eHealth Research & Disease Management Maastricht, 29 November 2010
  2. 2. Center for eHealth Research & Disease ManagementInstitute for Social Sciences and Technology  to create and share knowledge about social and behavioural aspects of technology in health care  to translate knowledge into useful technology concepts for (re)designing and implementing technology in healthcare  to intensify cooperation with international research centres and healthcare institutes  to strengthen the relationship between research, policy and practice  to contribute to the solution of social-economic problems, like ageing and chronic care, via technology
  3. 3. Trends in Healthcare (1)Ageing societies demand for innovative solutions  ↑ elderly people  ↑ healthcare associated infections  ↑ chronic diseases; comorbidity  ↓ healthcare professionals  ↓ budget
  4. 4. Trends in Healthcare (2)Nature of demand is changing: e-Citizens want Health 2.0 solutionsfor self-control
  5. 5. Technology can help, but what works? eDecision Aids eAwareness Dementia eMonitoring eCoacingeLearning eLogistics
  6. 6. Adherence to technology Focus in research: usage over time reasons for attrition; drivers for persistenceEysenbach, 2005, the law of attrition, J Med Internet Res 7(1):1
  7. 7. Barriers for adherence; why IT does not work systematic review diabetes care;1994-2009 (47/90 self-care)management No coordination offline-online Lack of training, education staff Lack of project management (case manager, nurse, Gp, specialist, patient) Bias in population; bias in publication, no report of drop outs Unclear insight in benefits (cost/benefits for whom?)technology Usability problems One-way-Feedback (professionals contact patient) Ceiling effect (ill-management; task-related coaches) Lack of push factors (triggers for motivation, like fun, entertaining, incentives, rewards) Lack of tailoring, template medicineresearch No longitudinal studies, no process results of usage Control-groups do no match with Intervention groups (weak RCTs) Unclear definitions of self-care Technology is a black box in research, no focus on capacities of technology as a medium for communication
  8. 8. Adherence to a web-based coach DM II;evaluation usage/discontinued usage (2 years) Different tools appear on demand: e.g. healthy living test, sport selection guide, activity scale, nutrition guide, weight manager, diet guide, mobility exercises Monitoring Motivation (eContact) Mentoring •Education •Instruction
  9. 9. Usage and non-usage of the eDiabetes coach 8 Mean number of hits I just forget and if my 7 diabetes nurse would provide some more help or 6  Usage over time, study period 2 years pay some more attention  methods to it, it might result in more 5 interest. 4  Survey Enrollee characteristics 3  Interviews barriers to enrollment  Log files/content analysis; Actual use of theshould be more It web application 2 interactive; that you  Usability-tests ; real-time observation actual usage a signal and would get 1  Interviews : motivations for use & barriers reply.. That you would to use get a slightly more 0  Follow-up emails Barriers to long-term usestable rhythm... 07/07 08/07 09/07 10/07 11/07 12/07 01/08 02/08 03/08 04/08 05/08 06/08 07/08 08/08 09/08 10/08 11/08 12/08 01/09 02/09 03/09 04/09 05/09 06/09 Personal data Online monitoring E-mail contact Online education Calendar Personal lifestyle coach Print feature
  10. 10. eCoaching, who persist? (review & diabetes coach)Those that might feel they have much to gain..Conscientiousness to gain their goals… (Halko&Kientz, 2010) positive attitude in advance to use the application “under-estimaters” high medication users eager to realize goals higher use of all modules; in particular monitoring+email proactive, asking for support via eContact reflection on usage (demand for “smart” technology; integration of monitoring+eContact+personal data) SES influences access, not persistence
  11. 11. Discontinued users (lifestyle coach) Technology not human-centered usability problems; people get lost lack of push factors (triggers; feedback; incentives; social media) Technology has no added value no fit into daily live ceiling effects (condition under control) wrong group (no critical condition to participants) No support (patients&profs) lack of pressure (no obligations for usage) lack of incentives, rewards no integration with offline medicine limited training staff no clear marketing or diffusion strategy
  12. 12. Adherence to Technology for dementia (vulnerable patients)(nursing homes; home care)  Safety support (passive)  GPS track and trace  Support for self-care, well-being (inter-active)  Touch screen & Video contact  Chitchatters (contact games “the Past”)  Care coordination support (passive)  IST Vivago Watch (measures sleep/wake rhythm)  ADL-sensor technology (observing activities)
  13. 13. Supply driven technology (passive tech), limited value  GPS systems (Talk me Home) frighten patients and cause weird situations (following tool, disregarding traffic)  Sensor technology (monitoring activities like eating, sleeping) enhanced feelings of safety however a lot of usability problems occurred
  14. 14. Patients & carers differ in needs and interests caregivers and family carers want technology for safety control, structures for living (interest) Patients want a view on the world outside, social contacts Narrative Technology, stories, songs, news from the past to “remember” 14
  15. 15. Why IT has limited value..  Supply-driven technology disregards needs and demands (frustration)  Expert-driven-development models disregard real-life situations and complexity in healthcare (high tech, low impact)  Medical-driven approach results in ill-management apps, rational-decision- making, no focus on well-being and lives to live (ceiling effects)  No hot-triggers for usage (drop-outs)  Absence of adequate business models hinder up-scaling (unclear who benefits)  Shortage of fully qualified eHealth professionals (no fit between offline-online care; shadow-organisation)  Systematic reviews & studies center eHealth research
  16. 16. Need for new approaches to achieve technologies that are human centered, fitfor context, and that make sense for all stakeholders
  17. 17. Roadmap for participatory development Thesis Nijland, 2010 17
  18. 18. Participation of stakeholders for value driven technologies Selection actors Values Functional requirements • is there any need for a new system? • what is the added value? • what are the critical design issues? • what are the conditions for implementation? • What are the roles, tasks related to technology ? What business models provide added value? 18
  19. 19. Health-technology-development is more than designing, engineering a good “thing” ortool, it is creating an infrastructure for knowledge dissemination, communication andthe organization of care
  20. 20. Persuasive Design to increase adherence Praise Rewards Reminders Suggestion Similarity Liking Social role 20
  21. 21. Co-design via social media To develop user-generated content, to know how people talk, think, what matters... Co-design of a communication platform – Antibiotic Stewardship Toolkit for hospital staff, primary care, general public – education, collaboration – awareness & information general public… – Outbreak management (multi resistant bacteria)
  22. 22. EURSAFETY HEALTH-NET CROSS-BORDER INFECTION CONTROL AHM van Limburg MSc BEng, MGR Hendrix PhD MD, J van Gemert-Pijnen PhD Business Modelling co-creation with stakeholders continuous, reflective process evaluation & implementation interwoven with development, no afterthought canvas models; cost/benefits
  23. 23. eHealth Research: 2.0 Topics for innovation  Innovative research methods for participatory health  monitoring (non)usage (attrition; persistence; user profiles)  international classification system to describe eH-interventions  persuasive design to increase adherence (human centered design)  co-creation via business modelling (value-driven)  wiki, social media as 2.0 research methods (user generated content)  multi-level (HOT-FIT) and multidisciplinary focus (social sciences, medical sciences, engineering)
  24. 24. Thanks..Contact: dr. J (Lisette) van