Overcoming Challenges to Inclusive User-based Testing of Health Information Technology with Vulnerable Older Adults: Recommendations from a Human Factors Engineering Expert Inquiry

OBJECTIVES

Involving representative users in usability testing of health information technology (HIT) is central to user-centered design. However, (vulnerable) older adults as representative users have unique requirements. Aging processes may affect physical capabilities and cognitive skills, which can hamper testing with this demographic and may require special attention and revised protocols. This study was performed to provide expert-based recommendations for HIT user-testing with (vulnerable) older adults to support inclusive HIT design and evaluation.

METHODS

First, we conducted a structured workshop with ten experts in HIT implementation and research, recruited through purposeful sampling, to generate insights into how characteristics of older adults may influence user-testing. Next, five Human Factor researchers experienced in HIT user-testing with (vulnerable) older adults validated the results and provided additional textual insights to gain consensus on the most important recommendations. A thematic analysis was performed on the resulting inquiries. Applied codes were based on the User-Centered Design framework.

RESULTS

The analysis resulted in nine recommendations for user-testing of HIT with older adults, divided into three main themes: (1) empathetic approach and trust-building, (2) new requirements for testing and study design, and (3) adjustments to usability evaluation methods. For each theme a checklist of relevant items to follow-up on the recommendation is provided.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations generated through expert inquiry contribute to more effective usability testing of HIT with older adults. This provides an important step towards improved accessibility of HIT amongst older adults through inclusive user-centered design.

The First Introduction of Social Robotics in Rehabilitation Care

Can you imagine to receive treatment through a robot? When talking about the future of healthcare, this is the vision many people have. Currently, the predominant role of social robots in care is entertaining patients. However, this does not have an impact on care process itself. In this paper, we focus on defining use cases other than merely keeping patients' company by implementing a Pepper robot in inpatient rehabilitation setting, and expand upon usability testing the use cases. Our findings showed that, to ensure sustainable implementation of social robots in care organizations, we need excessive collaboration with the target population.

Challenges and Best Practices in Ethical Review of Human and Organizational Factors Studies in Health Technology: a Synthesis of Testimonies

OBJECTIVE

Human and Organizational Factors (HOF) studies in health technology involve human beings and thus require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Yet HOF studies have specific constraints and methods that may not fit standard regulations and IRB practices. Gaining IRB approval may pose difficulties for HOF researchers. This paper aims to provide a first overview of HOF study challenges to get IRB review by exploring differences and best practices across different countries.

METHODS

HOF researchers were contacted by email to provide a testimony about their experience with IRB review and approval. Testimonies were thematically analyzed and synthesized to identify and discuss shared themes.

RESULTS

Researchers from seven European countries, Argentina, Canada, Australia, and the United States answered the call. Four themes emerged that indicate shared challenges in legislation, IRB inefficiencies and inconsistencies, general regulation and costs, and lack of HOF study knowledge by IRB members. We propose a model for IRB review of HOF studies based on best practices.

CONCLUSION

International criteria are needed that define low and high-risk HOF studies, to allow identification of studies that can undergo an expedited (or exempted) process from those that need full IRB review. Enhancing IRB processes in such a way would be beneficial to the conduct of HOF studies. Greater knowledge and promotion of HOF methods and evidence-based HOF study designs may support the evolving discipline. Based on these insights, training and guidance to IRB members may be developed to support them in ensuring that appropriate ethical issues for HOF studies are considered.

Trust in telemedicine portals for rehabilitation care: an exploratory focus group study with patients and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

For many eServices, end-user trust is a crucial prerequisite for use. Within the context of Telemedicine, the role of trust has hardly ever been studied. In this study, we explored what determines trust in portals that facilitate rehabilitation therapy, both from the perspective of the patient and the healthcare professional.

METHODS

We held two focus groups with patients (total n = 15) and two with healthcare professionals (total n = 13) in which we discussed when trust matters, what makes up trust in a rehabilitation portal, what effect specific design cues have, and how much the participants trust the use of activity sensor data for informing treatment.

RESULTS

Trust in a rehabilitation portal is the sum of trust in different factors. These factors and what makes up these factors differ for patients and healthcare professionals. For example, trust in technology is made up, for patients, mostly by a perceived level of control and privacy, while for healthcare professionals, a larger and different set of issues play a role, including technical reliability and a transparent data storage policy. Healthcare professionals distrust activity sensor data for informing patient treatment, as they think that sensors are unable to record the whole range of movements that patients make (e.g., walking and ironing clothes).

CONCLUSIONS

The set of factors that affect trust in a rehabilitation portal are different from the sets that have been found for other contexts, like eCommerce. Trust in telemedicine technology should be studied as a separate subject to inform the design of reliable interventions.

Designing eHealth that Matters via a Multidisciplinary Requirements Development Approach

Background

Requirements development is a crucial part of eHealth design. It entails all the activities devoted to requirements identification, the communication of requirements to other developers, and their evaluation. Currently, a requirements development approach geared towards the specifics of the eHealth domain is lacking. This is likely to result in a mismatch between the developed technology and end user characteristics, physical surroundings, and the organizational context of use. It also makes it hard to judge the quality of eHealth design, since it makes it difficult to gear evaluations of eHealth to the main goals it is supposed to serve.

Objective

In order to facilitate the creation of eHealth that matters, we present a practical, multidisciplinary requirements development approach which is embedded in a holistic design approach for eHealth (the Center for eHealth Research roadmap) that incorporates both human-centered design and business modeling.

Methods

Our requirements development approach consists of five phases. In the first, preparatory, phase the project team is composed and the overall goal(s) of the eHealth intervention are decided upon. Second, primary end users and other stakeholders are identified by means of audience segmentation techniques and our stakeholder identification method. Third, the designated context of use is mapped and end users are profiled by means of requirements elicitation methods (eg, interviews, focus groups, or observations). Fourth, stakeholder values and eHealth intervention requirements are distilled from data transcripts, which leads to phase five, in which requirements are communicated to other developers using a requirements notation template we developed specifically for the context of eHealth technologies.

Results

The end result of our requirements development approach for eHealth interventions is a design document which includes functional and non-functional requirements, a list of stakeholder values, and end user profiles in the form of personas (fictitious end users, representative of a primary end user group).

Conclusions

The requirements development approach presented in this article enables eHealth developers to apply a systematic and multi-disciplinary approach towards the creation of requirements. The cooperation between health, engineering, and social sciences creates a situation in which a mismatch between design, end users, and the organizational context can be avoided. Furthermore, we suggest to evaluate eHealth on a feature-specific level in order to learn exactly why such a technology does or does not live up to its expectations.