Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Developing a model for understanding patient collection of observations of daily living: a qualitative meta-synthesis of the Project HealthDesign program

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We conducted a meta-synthesis of five different studies that developed, tested, and implemented new technologies for the purpose of collecting observations of daily living (ODL). From this synthesis, we developed a model to explain user motivation as it relates to ODL collection. We describe this model that includes six factors that motivate patients’ collection of ODL data: usability, illness experience, relevance of ODL, information technology infrastructure, degree of burden, and emotional activation. We show how these factors can act as barriers or facilitators to the collection of ODL data and how interacting with care professionals and sharing ODL data may also influence ODL collection, health-related awareness, and behavior change. The model we developed and used to explain ODL collection can be helpful to researchers and designers who study and develop new, personal health technologies to empower people to improve their health.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Verbrugge LM (1980) Health diaries. Med Care 18(1):73–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Marceau LD et al (2007) Electronic diaries as a tool to improve pain management: is there any evidence? Pain Med 8(Suppl 3):S101–S109

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Bolger N, Davis A, Rafaeli E (2003) Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Annu Rev Psychol 54(1):579–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2009) The power and potential of personal health records. In: Chapter 3: Observations of daily living 2009. http://www.rwjf.org/en/research-publications/find-rwjf-research/2010/01/feature-the-power-and-potential-of-personal-health-records/chapter-3-observations-of-daily-living.html. Accessed August 6 2013

  5. Brennan PF, Downs S, Casper G (2010) Project HealthDesign: rethinking the power and potential of personal health records. J Biomed Inform 43(5):S3–S5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Coffman A et al (2010) Observations of daily living. University of California Berkeley School of Information. http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/files/student_projects/Observations_of_Daily_Living.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2013

  7. Burke LE et al (2012) Using mHealth technology to enhance self-monitoring for weight loss: a randomized trial. Am J Prev Med 43(1):20–26

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilcox AB et al (2012) Research data collection methods: from paper to tablet computers. Med Care 50:S68–S73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fox S, Duggan M (2012) Mobile health 2012. Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC

  10. Li I (2011) Personal informatics and context: using context to reveal factors that affect behavior. In: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh. p. 178

  11. Li I, Dey A, Forlizzi J (2010) A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2010, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, April 10–15, 2010

  12. Swan M (2009) Emerging patient-driven health care models: an examination of health social networks, consumer personalized medicine and quantified self-tracking. Int J Environ Res Public Health 6(2):492–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Swan M (2012) Health 2050: the realization of personalized medicine through crowdsourcing, the quantified self, and the participatory biocitizen. J Pers Med 2(3):93–118

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Bassett D, Cureton AL, Ainsworth BE (2000) Measurement of daily walking distance-questionnaire versus pedometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32(5):1018–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schneider PL, Crouter SE, Bassett DR (2004) Pedometer measures of free-living physical activity: comparison of 13 models. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36(2):331–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nike (2013) Nike plus. http://nikeplus.nike.com/plus. Accessed 8 Jul 2013

  17. Archer N et al (2011) Personal health records: a scoping review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 18(4):515–522

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Chomutare T et al (2011) Features of mobile diabetes applications: review of the literature and analysis of current applications compared against evidence-based guidelines. J Med Internet Res 13(3):e65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fonda SJ et al (2010) Evolution of a web-based, prototype personal health application for diabetes self-management. J Biomed Inform 43(5 Suppl):S17–S21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Massoudi BL et al (2010) A web-based intervention to support increased physical activity among at-risk adults. J Biomed Inform 43(5 Suppl):S41–S45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rabin C, Bock B (2011) Desired features of smartphone applications promoting physical activity. Telemed J E Health 17(10):801–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Abroms LC et al (2011) iPhone apps for smoking cessation: a content analysis. Am J Prev Med 40(3):279–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Proudfoot J et al (2010) Community attitudes to the appropriation of mobile phones for monitoring and managing depression, anxiety, and stress. J Med Internet Res 12(5):e64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Luxton DD et al (2011) mHealth for mental health: integrating smartphone technology in behavioral healthcare. Prof Psychol Res Pr 42(6):505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Greenhalgh T et al (2004) Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 82(4):581–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Greenhalgh T, Russell J, Swinglehurst D (2005) Narrative methods in quality improvement research. Qual Saf Health Care 14(6):443–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Greenhalgh T et al (2009) Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method. Milbank Q 87(4):729–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pawson R, Tilley N (1997) Realistic Evaluation. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pawson R et al (2005) Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy 10(Suppl 1):21–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sandelowski M (2008) Reading, writing and systematic review. J Adv Nurs 64(1):104–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Voils C et al (2008) Making sense of qualitative and quantitative findings in mixed research synthesis studies. Field Methods 20(1):3–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Borkan J (1999) Immersion/crystallization. In: Crabtree B, Miller W (eds) Doing qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 179–194

    Google Scholar 

  33. Miller W, Crabtree B (1992) Primary care research: a multimethod typology and qualitative roadmap. In: Crabtree B, Miller W (eds) Doing qualitative research. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 3–28

    Google Scholar 

  34. Miller W, Crabtree B (1994) Clinical Research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 340–352

    Google Scholar 

  35. Miller W, Crabtree B (1994) Qualitative analysis: how to begin making sense. Fam Pract Res J 14(3):289–297

    Google Scholar 

  36. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 319–340

  37. Chadia A, Maloney-Krichmar D, Preece J (2004) User-centered design. In: Bainbridge W (ed) Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mainwaring SD, Chang MF, Anderson K (2004) Infrastructures and their discontents: implications for ubicomp. UbiComp 2004: Ubiquitous Computing. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 418–432

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee, M (2012) Evaluation infrastructure headaches. Project HealthDesign Blog Mar 6, 2012. http://projecthealthdesign.typepad.com/project_health_design/2012/03/evaluation-infrastructure-headaches.html. Accessed 5 Jun 2012

  40. Sabee CM et al (2011) Five clicks, five minutes: providing a voice for youth with obesity and depression with a mobile health platform. Paper presented at the international conference on communication and healthcare annual meeting, Chicago, IL, USA, Oct 16–19, 2011

  41. Patel SN et al (2006) Farther than you may think: an empirical investigation of the proximity of users to their mobile phones. UbiComp 2006: Ubiquitous Computing. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 123–140

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Lee ML (2012) Task-based embedded assessment of functional abilities for aging in place. Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University

  43. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF (1997) The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot 12(1):38–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dennison L et al (2013) Opportunities and challenges for smartphone applications in supporting health behavior change: Qualitative Study. J Med Internet Res 15(4)

  45. Kim K (2011) Is theory-based design practical? Project HealthDesign Blog Nov 10, 2011. http://projecthealthdesign.typepad.com/project_health_design/2011/11/is-theory-based-design-practical.html. Accessed 10 May 2012

  46. Weiser M (2009) The computer for the 21st century. Sci Am 265(3):94–104

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Truong KN, Hayes GR (2009) Ubiquitous computing for capture and access. Found Trends Hum Comput Interact 2(2):95–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Abowd GD, Mynatt ED (2000) Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact (TOCHI) 7(1):29–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Brandt J, Weiss N, Klemmer SR (2007) txt 4 l8r: lowering the burden for diary studies under mobile conditions. In: CHI’07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM

  50. Hong JI et al (2004) Privacy risk models for designing privacy-sensitive ubiquitous computing systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. 2004. ACM, 91–100

  51. Hayes GR, Abowd GD (2006) Tensions in designing capture technologies for an evidence-based care community. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2006, New York, NY

  52. Short L, Saindon E (1998) Telehomecare rewards and risks. Caring 17(10):36

    Google Scholar 

  53. Roback K, Herzog A (2003) Home informatics in healthcare: assessment guidelines to keep up quality of care and avoid adverse effects. Technol Health Care 11(3):195–206

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the five Project HealthDesign Round 2 projects and their collaborators for participating in the Project HealthDesign evaluation.

The authors are grateful for editing and publication assistance from Ms. LeNeva Spires, Publications Manager, Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, FM, Portland, OR, 97239-3098, USA

    Deborah J. Cohen & Sara R. Keller

  2. Department of Informatics, Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA

    Gillian R. Hayes

  3. Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, FM, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    David A. Dorr & Joan S. Ash

  4. UT - Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, University of Texas School of Biomedical Informatics at Houston, 6410 Fannin St., UTPB 1100.43, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Dean F. Sittig

Authors
  1. Deborah J. Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sara R. Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gillian R. Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David A. Dorr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joan S. Ash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dean F. Sittig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah J. Cohen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cohen, D.J., Keller, S.R., Hayes, G.R. et al. Developing a model for understanding patient collection of observations of daily living: a qualitative meta-synthesis of the Project HealthDesign program. Pers Ubiquit Comput 19, 91–102 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0804-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0804-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation