How to test electronic adherence monitoring devices for use in daily life: A conceptual framework

CIN - Computers Informatics Nursing

Volumn 29, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 489-495

  De Bleser, Leentje ^a   De Geest, Sabina ^a,b   Vincke, Birgit ^a   Ruppar, Todd ^a,c   Vanhaecke, Johan ^d   Dobbels, Fabienne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Adherence; Conceptual framework; Electronic monitoring; Usability; Validity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT; EVALUATION; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MONITORING; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; REPRODUCIBILITY; TELEMETRY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; HUMANS; MONITORING, PHYSIOLOGIC; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TELEMETRY;

EID: 80053929592     PISSN: 15382931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/NCN.0b013e31821a1555     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Hensel BK, Demiris G, Courtney KL. Defining obtrusiveness in home telehealth technologies: a conceptual framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(4):428-431. (Pubitemid 43947625)
2. Denhaerynck K, Schafer-Keller P, Young J, Steiger J, Bock A,DeGeest S. Examining assumptions regarding valid electronic monitoring of medication therapy: development of a validation framework and its application on a European sample of kidney transplant patients. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:5.
3. Medical Device Directives (93/42/EEC). Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. 2010. http://europa.eu/legislation- summaries/internal-market/single-market-for-goods/technical-harmonisation/ l21010b-en.htm. Accessed April 11, 2011.
4. LeCocq A. Application of human factors engineering to cardioplegia delivery system design. Canadian Perfusion Canadienne. 1996;8(3).
5. Hamilton C. Critical assessment of new devices. Perfusion. 2007; 22(3):167-171. (Pubitemid 350018037)
6. Williamson C. Editorial: what does involving consumers in research mean? QJM Oxford University Press. 2001;94:661-664. (Pubitemid 34071501)
7. Bridgelal Ram M, Grocott P, Weir H. Issues and challenges of involving users in medical device development. Health Expect. 2007; 11:63-71.
8. Rosson MB, Carroll JM. Usability Engineering. Scenario-Based Development of Human-Computer Interaction. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2002.
9. Lymberis A, Gatzoulis L. Wearable health systems: from smart technologies to real applications. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2006;Suppl:6789-6792. (Pubitemid 46521488)
10. Fensli R, Pedersen PE, Gundersen T, Hejlesen O. Sensor acceptance model-measuring patient acceptance of wearable sensors. Methods Inf Med. 2008;47(1):89-95. (Pubitemid 351160351)
11. Nielsen J. Summary of usability inspection methods. http://www. useit.com/papers/heuristic/inspection-summary.html. Accessed November 3, 2010.
12. Kimberlin C,Winterstein A. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2008;65(1): 2276-2284.
13. Polit D, Hungler B. Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 2000:700.
14. American Educational Research Association. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: AERA Publications Sales; 1999:25.
15. Food and Drugs Administration. Medical device use safety: incorporating human factors engineering into risk management. Guidance for industry and pre-market and design controllers reviewers. 2000.http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm094461.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.
16. Lewis C, Rieman J. Task-centered user interface design: a practical introduction. 1993. http://hcibib.org/tcuid/index.html#notice. Accessed April 11, 2011.
17. Deschamps AE, van Wijngaerden E, Denhaerynck K, De Geest S, Vandamme AM. Use of electronic monitoring induces a 40-day intervention effect in HIV patients. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006; 43(2):247-248.
18. Gecas V. The self-concept. Ann Rev Sociol. 1982;8:1-33.
19. Gitlin LN. Why older people accept or reject assistive technology. Generations. 1995;19(1):41-47.
20. Schmidt S, Sheikzadeh S, Beil B, Patten M, Stettin J. Acceptance of telemonitoring to enhance medication compliance in patients with chronic heart failure. Telemed J E Health. 2008;14(5):426-433. (Pubitemid 351913551)
21. De Bleser L, Vincke B, Dobbels F, et al. A new electronic monitoring device to measure medication adherence: usability of the Helping Handi. Sensors. 2010;10:1535-1552.
22. De Bleser L, De Geest S, Vandenbroeck S, Vanhaecke J, Dobbels F. How accurate are electronic monitoring devices? A laboratory study testing two devices to measuremedication adherence. Sensors. 2010; 10:1652-1660.
23. Deschamps AE, Graeve VD, van Wijngaerden E, et al. Prevalence and correlates of nonadherence to antiretroviral therapy in a population of HIV patients using Medication Event Monitoring System. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2004;18(11):644-657. (Pubitemid 39579158)
24. Malassigne P, Nelson AL, Cors MW, Amerson TL. Design of the advanced commode-shower chair for spinal cord-injured individuals. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000;37(3):373-382. (Pubitemid 30641234)
25. Malassigne P, Nelson AL, Cors MW, et al. Iterative design and evaluation of new prone carts for individuals with SCDs: a technical note. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002;39(1):127-139. (Pubitemid 34260333)
26. Sheredos SJ, Cupo ME. The Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Services technology transfer process. Technol Disabil. 1997;7:25-29. (Pubitemid 27338207)
27. Mulholland SJ, Packer TL, Laschinger SJ, Lysack JT, Wyss UP, Balaram S. Evaluating a new mobility device: feedback from women with disabilities in India. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22(3):111-122. (Pubitemid 30135989)
28. Alam I. An exploratory investigation of user involvement in new service development. J Acad Market Sci. 2002;30:250-261. (Pubitemid 36703962)
29. Magnusson PR, Matthing J, Kristensson P. Managing user involvement in service innovation: experiments with innovating end users. J Serv Res. 2003;6:111-124.
30. Shah SG, Robinson I. User involvement in healthcare technology development and assessment: structured literature review. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 2006;19(6-7): 500-515.
31. Martin JL, Murphy E, Crowe JA, Norris BJ. Capturing user requirements in medical device development: the role of ergonomics. Physiol Meas. 2006;27(8):R49-R62. (Pubitemid 43898589)
32. Bridgelal Ram M, Campling N, Grocott P, Weir H. A methodology for a structured survey of the healthcare literature related tomedical device users. Evaluation. 2008;14:49-73.
33. Mullen KH, Berry DL, Zierler BK. Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer. Part II: acceptability and usability. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2004;31(5):E84-E89.
34. Sandelowski M. Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(3):246-255.