You can’t always get what you want: Streamlining stakeholder interests when designing technology-supported services for Active and Assisted Living

Oberschmidt, Kira; Grünloh, Christiane; Tunç, Sefora; Velsen, Lex van; Nijboer, Femke

doi:10.1145/3441000.3441040

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this iterative approach was said to be quite time consuming for researchers and participants [ 33 , 54 , 64 , 82 , 84 - 86 , 90 , 92 ]. Third, to ensure that valuable information for eHealth development is gathered, the content and form of focus groups need to be adapted, based on the topic and target group [ 39 - 41 , 51 , 55 , 61 , 87 ]. To illustrate, in-person focus groups are not suitable for every topic.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, different types of participants might require different types of focus groups. For example, focus groups with people with an intellectual disability or with older adults require a setup with more concrete examples of eHealth and might benefit from icebreakers and room for informal conversations [ 87 ]. In contrast, focus groups with therapists or researchers can cover more abstract topics [ 15 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us the potential of online research. Organizing web-based usability testing, focus groups, or interviews is sometimes not only necessary, but they can also have practical and even substantive advantages [ 87 ]. Future research can focus on if and how research from a distance can be applied to make eHealth development more efficient and effective.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Methods for Human-Centered eHealth Development: Narrative Scoping Review

Kip¹,

Keizer²,

Silva³

et al. 2022

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Thorough holistic development of eHealth can contribute to a good fit among the technology, its users, and the context. However, despite the availability of frameworks, not much is known about specific research activities for different aims, phases, and settings. This results in researchers having to reinvent the wheel. Consequently, there is a need to synthesize existing knowledge on research activities for participatory eHealth development processes. Objective The 3 main goals of this review are to create an overview of the development strategies used in studies based on the CeHRes (Center for eHealth Research) Roadmap, create an overview of the goals for which these methods can be used, and provide insight into the lessons learned about these methods. Methods We included eHealth development studies that were based on the phases and/or principles of the CeHRes Roadmap. This framework was selected because of its focus on participatory, iterative eHealth design in context and to limit the scope of this review. Data were extracted about the type of strategy used, rationale for using the strategy, research questions, and reported information on lessons learned. The most frequently mentioned lessons learned were summarized using a narrative, inductive approach. Results In the included 160 papers, a distinction was made between overarching development methods (n=10) and products (n=7). Methods are used to gather new data, whereas products can be used to synthesize previously collected data and support the collection of new data. The identified methods were focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, usability tests, literature studies, desk research, log data analyses, card sorting, Delphi studies, and experience sampling. The identified products were prototypes, requirements, stakeholder maps, values, behavior change strategies, personas, and business models. Examples of how these methods and products were applied in the development process and information about lessons learned were provided. Conclusions This study shows that there is a plethora of methods and products that can be used at different points in the development process and in different settings. To do justice to the complexity of eHealth development, it seems that multiple strategies should be combined. In addition, we found no evidence for an optimal single step-by-step approach to develop eHealth. Rather, researchers need to select the most suitable research methods for their research objectives, the context in which data are collected, and the characteristics of the participants. This study serves as a first step toward creating a toolkit to support researchers in applying the CeHRes Roadmap to practice. In this way, they can shape the most suitable and efficient eHealth development process.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methods for Human-Centered eHealth Development: Narrative Scoping Review

Kip¹,

Keizer²,

Silva³

et al. 2022

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 12 (55%) of the 22 studies, recruitment through partners was used to identify relevant and interested older people (for example, through patient associations) [ 26 , 28 , 31 - 33 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 47 ]. In 4 studies, purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants [ 35 , 36 , 40 , 46 ], and in 2 studies, outreach approaches were applied.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the most used recruitment method is invitation through partners, in which there is a risk of bias. For example, Oberschmidt et al [ 44 ] problematize recruiting through partners and highlight participant bias as a study limitation. The study emphasizes that the older people who participated were very active and outgoing.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Involving Older People With Frailty or Impairment in the Design Process of Digital Health Technologies to Enable Aging in Place: Scoping Review

Wegener¹,

Bergschöld²,

Whitmore³

et al. 2023

JMIR Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background With an increase in life expectancy globally, the focus on digital health technologies that can enhance physical and mental health among older people with frailty and impairment has increased. Similarly, research interest in how digital health technology can promote well-being and self-management of health in older age has increased, including an increased focus on methods for designing digital health technologies that meet the various medical, psychological, and social needs of older population. Despite the increased focus, there remains a necessity to further understand the needs of this population group to ensure uptake and to avoid introduction of additional challenges when introducing technologies, for example, because of poor technological design. The scope is limited to digital health technologies meant to enable older people with frailty and impairment to age in place. Objective In this study, we aimed to explore how older people with frailty and impairment are involved in various parts of the design processes of digital health technologies and identify gaps or neglected steps in a user-involving design process. This included a focus on recruitment strategies, contributions, and methods used to address the perspectives, needs, and desires of older people with frailty and impairment in the development of digital health technologies. Methods A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting from February 2021 to April 2021. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and IEEE using a search string covering the concepts of health technology, older people, frailty and impairment, user-centered design, and self-management. Results In total, 1891 studies were imported for screening from the initial search. A total of 22 studies were included in this review after full-text screening and manual search. Invitation through partners was the most reported recruitment strategy to involve older people with frailty and impairment in the design process of digital health technologies. Furthermore, they were commonly involved in the final evaluation of the development process. Three main gaps identified were the use of outreach approaches to recruit older people with frailty and impairment in the design process of digital health technologies, description of the value of involvement and outcome of the contribution of participants, and knowledge regarding involvement in all parts of the design process. Conclusions Although there is literature on methods for involving older people with frailty and impairment in the design of digital health technology, there is little methodological dialogue on the nuances of how different methods for involvement relate to and shape the outcome of the development process.

show abstract