Development of Novel eHealth Services for Citizen Use – Current System Engineering vs. Best Practice in HCI

Abstract

Abstract.Many new public eHealth Services are now being developed. Often a conventional customer-vendor process is used, where the customer is a public authority, e.g. a county council, and the vendor a commercial actor, e.g. an IT development company. In this case study the engineering process regards a novel eHealth service aiming to provide patients with online access to their electronic health record. A complicating factor in conventional customervendor processes for public e-services is that "the future user could be anyone". In the light of best practice in Human-Computer Interaction, this study examines the joint effort of the customer and vendor when developing novel services for citizen use. The results include delimiting factors, recommendations for public authority customers and proposed new actions for the research agenda.

Oncology health-care professionals’ perceived effects of patient accessible electronic health records 6 years after launch: A survey study at a major university hospital in Sweden

“…17 Previous researches on the implementation of PAEHR in Sweden have investigated the patient perspective, 9,16 as well as the implementation process used. 18 Some studies have examined the initial experiences for health-care professionals. [19][20][21][22][23][24] These studies show that a large majority of the health-care professionals had concerns related to contacts with patients.…”

External User Inclusion in Public e-Service Development: Exploring the Current Practice in Sweden

“…Illustrating examples are found mainly in Scandinavian research studies of user participation where the possibility to take an independent position has been seen as natural elements in research since the 1970s [20,21]. Scandurra, Holgersson, Lindh and Myreteg [9] report findings from a case study on the development process of online electronic health records. They found that external user inclusion during the development process was limited to a few poorly documented focus group meetings with patient organisations with no real impact on the development process.…”