Commercial off-the-shelf consumer health informatics interventions: Recommendations for their design, evaluation and redesign

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 137-142

  Marquard, Jenna L ^a   Zayas Cabán, Teresa ^b  

^a University of Massachusetts   (United States)

^b AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BARIATRIC SURGERY; BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING; COGNITION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DIABETES MELLITUS; ERGONOMICS; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT; PEDOMETER; PHYSICAL TOLERANCE; SCIENTIST; SCORING SYSTEM;

BARIATRIC SURGERY; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DIABETES COMPLICATIONS; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; SELF CARE;

EID: 84856806245     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000338     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Zayas-Cabán T, Marquard JL. A holistic human factors evaluation framework for the design of consumer health informatics interventions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; 2009 Oct 19-23. San Antonio, TX, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2009:1003-7.
2. Zayas-Cabán T, Brennan PF. Human factors in home care. In: Carayon P, ed. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care and Patient Safety. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007:883-97.
3. Kaplan B, Brennan PF. Consumer informatics supporting patients as co-producers of quality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001;8:398-9.
4. Catwell L, Sheikh A. Evaluating eHealth interventions: the need for continuous systematic intervention. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000126. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000126 (accessed 10 Sep 2010).
5. Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: Social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res 2008;10:e22. http://www.jmir.org/2008/3/e22/ (accessed 10 Sep 2010).
6. Keselman A, Logan R, Smith CA, et al. Developing informatics tools and strategies for consumer-centered health communication. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008;15:473-83.
7. Youngmin K. Challenges to using an electronic personal health record by a low-income elderly population. J Med Internet Res 2009;11:e44.
8. Shah SGS, Robinson I. Taxonomy of surrogate users for the development and evaluation of medical devices from the end users' perspective. In: Ibrahim F, Osman NA, Usman J, et al, eds. Proceedings of the Third Kuala Lumpur International Conference on Biomedical Engineering; 2006 Dec 11-14. Kuala Lampur, Malaysia, Berlin: Springer, 2007:546-9.
9. Silverstein SM. Sociotechnologic issues in clinical computing: common examples of healthcare IT difficulties [Internet], 2007. http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/failurecases/?loc=home (accessed 26 Jan 2009).
10. Stead WW, Lin HS, eds. Computational Technology for Effective Health Care: Immediate Steps and Strategic Directions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.
11. Kahn JS, Aulakh V, Bosworth A. What it takes: characteristics of the ideal personal health record. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28:369-76.
12. Zayas-Cabán T, Dixon BE. Considerations for the design of safe and effective consumer health IT applications in the home. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19(Suppl 3): i61-7.
13. Bakker TA, Ryce AN, Logan RA, et al. A consumer health informatics (CHI) toolbox: challenges and implications. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2005:21-5.
14. Peters K, Niebling M, Slimmer C, et al. Usability guidance for improving the user interface and adoption of online personal health records [Internet], 2009. http://www.slideshare.net/usercentric/usability-guidance-for-improving-the-user-interfaceand-adoption-of-online-personal-health-records (accessed 1 Aug 2010).
15. Ketchum AM. Consumer health information websites: a survey of design elements found in sites developed in academic environments. J Med Libr Assoc 2005;93:496-9.
16. Liu L, Hayes G. Evaluating the usefulness and usability of collaborative personal health record systems [Internet], 2010. http://lesliesliu.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/CSCW_PHR_Final.pdf (accessed 1 Aug 2010).
17. Sunyaev A. Evaluation framework for personal health records: Microsoft HealthVault vs Google Health. In: Sprague RH, ed. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 2010 Jan 5-8. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, Los Alamitos (CA): IEEE Computer Society, 2010:1e10.
18. Lange B, Flynn S, Rizzo A. Initial usability assessment of off-the-shelf video game consoles for clinical game-based motor rehabilitation. Phys Ther Rev 2009;14:355-63.
19. Ram MB, Browne N, Grocott P, et al. Methods to capture user perspectives in medical device development a review of the literature in health care [Internet]. Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Health (MATCH), 2005. http://www.match.ac.uk/docs/file/Deliverables/Deliverable%206a%20_P3_D6%20Part%20A_V3_0_kcl_051025_.pdf (accessed 1 Aug 2010).
20. American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2007. Diabetes Care 2008;31:596-615.
21. Bariatric Surgery - Following Doctor's Orders Results in 35% More Weight Loss. Medical News Today [Internet], 2008. Obesity/Weight Loss/Fitness News: [about 3 pp]. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111681.php (accessed 5 Mar 2009).
22. Christou NV, Sampalis JS, Liberman M, et al. Surgery decreases long-term mortality, morbidity, and health care use in morbidly obese patients. Ann Surg 2004;240:416-23.
23. Clarkson J, Coleman R, Hosking I, et al. Inclusive design toolkit. UK: Cambridge Engineering Design Centre [Internet], 2007. http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/betterdesign (accessed 4 Mar 2009).
24. Marquard JL, Brennan PF. A misfit tool: patients' (lack of) use of a structured decision aid. Proceedings of the 9th bi-annual International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making [Internet]. 2009 June 23-26. London, UK. London, UK: British Computer Society, 2009:237-38. http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/ewic_ndm09_s2paper17.pdf (accessed 10 Sep 2010).
25. Marquard JL, Brennan PF. Crying wolf: consumers may be more willing to share medication information than policymakers think. J Healthc Inf Manag 2009;23:26-32.
26. Crandall B, Klein GA, Hoffman RR. Working Minds: a Practitioner's Guide to Cognitive Task Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
27. Eysenbach G, Jadad AR. Evidence-based patient choice and consumer health informatics in the Internet age. J Med Internet Res 2001;3:E19. http://www.jmir.org/2001/2/e19 (accessed 10 Sep 2010).
28. Marquard JL, Brennan PF. Using decision scenarios to evaluate laypeople's computer-mediated medication information sharing choices. Proceedings of the 9th bi-annual International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making [Internet]. 2009 June 23-26. London, UK: British Computer Society, 2009:241-8. http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/ewic_ndm09_s2paper19.pdf (accessed 10 Sep 2010).
29. Clegg CW. Sociotechnical principles for system design. Appl Ergon 2000;31:463-77.
30. Hendrick HW, Kleiner BM. Macroergonomics: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.
31. Martin J, Crowe J, Murphy E, et al. Methods to capture user perspectives in the medical device technology cycle: a structured survey of engineering and ergonomics literature [Internet]. Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Health (MATCH), 2005. http://www.match.ac.uk/docs/file/Deliverables/Deliverable%206c%20_P3_D6%20Part%20C_V3_0_Nott_051025_.pdf (accessed 1 Aug 2010).
32. Shah R, Robinson I, Part B. Methods to capture user perspectives in the medical device technology cycle: a structured survey of social sciences literature. Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Health (MATCH), 2005. http://www.match.ac.uk/docs/file/Deliverables/Deliverable%206b%20_P3_D6%20Part%20B_V3_0_brunel_051031_.pdf (accessed 1 Aug 2010).
33. Jeffries R, Desurvire H. Usability testing vs heuristic evaluation: was there a contest? ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 1992;24:39-41.
34. Nielsen J, Molich R. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Empowering people; 1990 Apr 1-5. Seattle, Washington, United States. New York: ACM, 1990:249-56.
35. Sears A, Hess DJ. Cognitive walkthroughs: understanding the effect of task-description detail on evaluator performance. Int J Hum Comput Interact 1999;11:185-200.