Advertisement

Health and Technology

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 857–876 | Cite as

Sociotechnical design for mobile anticoagulant therapy

  • Barbara Rita BarricelliEmail author
  • Jose Abdelnour-Nocera
  • Jennie Wilson
  • Ken Eason
Original Paper

Abstract

In this paper we present MANTRA (Mobile ANticoagulant TheRApy), a project aimed at studying feasibility and acceptability of the introduction of mobile technology in the management of anticoagulant therapy involving both patients and health practitioners in their design. By the evaluation of the MANTRA Project, we developed a general approach to mHealth in the remote management of chronic diseases by supporting the communication among patients and healthcare practitioners. Patients usually have to make frequent visits to surgeries to meet nurses for the tests, and General Practitioners (GPs) for receiving drug prescriptions. We report on the implementation of the project as a proof of concept in London. A group of patients, General Practitioners, nurses, and healthcare assistants from the National Health Service (NHS) participated in design and evaluation phases. The distinct characteristics of the NHS as one of the world’s largest publicly funded health services posed a number of sociotechnical challenges to the design team. We present how we approached and addressed these challenges through MANTRA. Patients and Healthcare practitioners recognized the validity of our proposed design approach not only for supporting the remote therapy practice preserving an efficient and effective communication with the patients, but also as a way for better managing resources in anticoagulant clinics in the context of the NHS. With our research we explored the process that needs to be followed to develop a mobile system that would fit the sociotechnical ecosystem of anticoagulant therapy. Furthermore, we are now able to identify the changes that will be necessary in the ecosystem itself to make an effective use of the mobile system.

Keywords

Anticoagulant therapy Chronic diseases mHealth Mobile devices Sociotechnical design Telemedicinee 

Notes

Funding Information

The MANTRA Project was funded by the Leverhulme Trust with a Visiting Fellowship for Barbara Rita Barricelli at the University of West London.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interests

The authors whose names are listed above certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers? bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical statement

The authors whose names are listed above certify that all procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Project went under Ethical approval through the NHS and the University of West London in 2013.

Ethical approval

The authors whose names are listed above certify that all procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Project went under Ethical approval through the NHS and University of West London in 2013.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdelnour-Nocera J. 2007. The Social Construct of Usefulness: an intercultural study of producers and users of a business information system. VDM Verlag .Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barricelli BR, Devis Y, Abdelnour-Nocera J, Wilson J, Moore J. Mantra: mobile anticoagulant therapy management. 2013 7th international conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare and workshops. IEEE; 2013. p. 278–281,  https://doi.org/10.4108/icst.pervasivehealth.2013.252096.
  3. 3.
    Barricelli B, Devis Y. Mhealth in resource-constrained environments. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development 2014;6(1):18–35.  https://doi.org/10.4018/ijskd.2014010102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bussey HI, Chiquette EM, B.T. Lowder-Bender K. A statistical and clinical evaluation of fingerstick and routine laboratory prothrombin time measurements. Pharmacotherapy 1997; 17 (5): 861–866.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1875-9114.1997.tb03775.x.
  5. 5.
    Callon M. 1986. Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. Sheridan House.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Camara S, Abdelnour-Nocera J. Revealing the socio-technical context of design settings: toward participatory is design. Int J Hum Comput Interact 2013;29(4):289–307.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2013.765767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen Y, Cheng K, Tang C, Siek KA, Bardram JE. Is my doctor listening to me?: Impact of health it systems on patient-provider interaction. CHI ’13 Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, CHI EA ’13. ACM; 2013. p. 2419–2426,  https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468791.
  8. 8.
    Chen QL, Dong L, Dong YJ, Zhao SL, Fu B, Wang YQ, Jiang H. Security and cost comparison of inr self-testing and conventional hospital inr testing in patients with mechanical heart valve replacement. 2015; 10(1).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-015-0205-1. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84928669219&doi=10.1186.
  9. 9.
    Christensen H, Lauterlein J, Sørensen P, Petersen E, Madsen J, Brandslund I. Home management of oral anticoagulation via telemedicine versus conventional hospitalbased treatment. Telemed eHealth 2011;17(3): 169–176.  https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2010.0128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cromheecke ME, Levi M, Colly LP, de Mol BJM, Prins MH, Hutten BA, Mak R, Keyzers KCJ, Büller H. R. Oral anticoagulation self-management and management by a specialist anticoagulation clinic: a randomised cross-over comparison. Lancet 2000;356(9224):97–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02470-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dedding C, van Doorn R, Winkler L, Reis R. How will e-health affect patient participation in the clinic? a review of e-health studies and the current evidence for changes in the relationship between medical professionals and patients. Soc Sci Med 2011;72:49–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.10.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dorfman DM, Goonan EM, Boutilier MK, Jarolim P, Tanasijevica M, Goldhaber SZ. Pointofcare (poc) versus central laboratory instrumentation for monitoring oral anticoagulation. Vasc Med 2005;10(1): 232–237.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1358863x05vm587oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duncan AS, Beabes MA. Contextual inquiry: grounding your design in user’s work. Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems: ACM Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eason K, Waterson P, Davda P. The sociotechnical challenge of integrating telehealth and telecare into health and social care for the elderly): IGI Global; 2015, pp. 1177–1189.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ehn P. Work-Oriented Design of computer artifacts: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.; 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gardiner C, Williams K, Mackie IJ, Machin SJ, Cohen H. Patient selftesting is a reliable and acceptable alternative to laboratory inr monitoring. Br J Haematol 2005;128(2):242–247.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2004.05300.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gardiner C, Williams K, Mackie IJ, Machin SJ, Cohen H. Can oral anticoagulation be managed using telemedicine and patient self-testing? a pilot study. Clin Labor Haematol 2006;28(2):122–125.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2257.2006.00759.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gerdes M, Martinez S, Smaradottir B, Fensli R, Jortveit J. Warfarin guide: Co-design of a mobile computer-assisted anticoagulant therapy. Stud Health Technol Inf 2017;245:1222.  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-830-3-1222. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85040511672&doi=10.3233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hamine S, Gerth-Guyette E, Faulx D, Green BB, Ginsburg SA. Impact of mhealth chronic disease management on treatment adherence and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2015;17 (2):e52.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hansen TR. Strings of experiments: looking at the design process as a set of socio-technical experiments. In: Proceedings of PDC 2006. ACM; 2006, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hasenkam J, Kimose HH, Knudsen L, Grønnesby H, Halborg J, Christensen T, Attermann J, Pilegaard H. Self management of oral anticoagulant therapy after heart valve replacement. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg 1997;11(5):935–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-7940(97)01204-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heneghan C, Ward A, Perera R. Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet 2012;379(9813):322–334.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61294-4. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84856387132&doi=10.1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Javitt JC, Shane Reese C, Derrick MK. Deployment of an mhealth patient monitoring solution for diabetes— improved glucose monitoring leads to reduction in medical expenditure. US Endocrinol 2013;9(2):119–123.  https://doi.org/10.17925/USE.2013.09.02.119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kleimann S. Response to ”using contextual inquiry”. SIGDOC Asterisk. J Comput Doc 1996;20(1):22–24.  https://doi.org/10.1145/227614.228150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Latour B. We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Law J, Hassard J. Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell; 1999.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lin A, Silva L. The social and political construction of technological frames. Eur J Inf Syst 2005;14:49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miaskiewicz T, Kozar K. Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes?. Design Studies (32). 2011:417–430.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nagler M, Bachmann L, Schmid P, Raddatz Müller P, Wuillemin W. Patient self-management of oral anticoagulation with vitamin k antagonists in everyday practice: Efficacy and safety in a nationwide long-term prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2014; 9(4).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095761. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84899686376&doi=10.1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    NHS: National patient safety agency (npsa nhs) guide to setting up an anticoagulation clinic in primary care. Tech. rep., NHS; 2016. http://www.slcsn.nhs.uk/af/af-anticoagulation.html.
  31. 31.
    Nielsen J, Mack R. Usability inspection methods. New York: Wiley; 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nielsen J, Molich R. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 1990 conference; 1990, pp. 249– 256.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pozzi M, Mitchell J, Henaine A, Hanna N, Safi O, Henaine R. International normalized ratio self-testing and self-management: Improving patient outcomes. Vascul Health Risk Manag 2016; 12:387–392.  https://doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S85031. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84994453150&doi=10.2147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pruitt J, Grudin J. Personas: practice and theory. In: Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences (DUX ’03); 2003, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Salvador CH, Ruiz-Sanchez A, de Mingo MAG, Carmona Rodriguez M, Carrasco MP, Sagredo PG, Fragua JA, Caballero-Martinez F, Garcia-Lopez F, Marquez-Montes J, Monteagudo JL. Evaluation of a telemedicine-based service for the follow-up and monitoring of patients treated with oral anticoagulant therapy. Trans Info Tech Biomed 2008;12(6):696–706.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TITB.2008.910750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schneeweiss S, Gagne JJ, Patrick AR, Choudhry NK, Avorn J. Comparative efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Circul: Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012;5:480–486.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.112.965988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smaradottir B, Martinez S, Borycki E, Loudon G, Kushniruk A, Jortveit J. Fensli, R.: User evaluation of a smartphone application for anticoagulation therapy. Stud Health Technol Inf 2018; 247 : 466–470.  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-852-5-466. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85046543757&doi=10.3233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thompson J, Sundt T, Sarano M, Santrach P, Schaff H. In-patient international normalized ratio self-testing instruction after mechanical heart valve implantation. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2008; 85(6):2046–2050.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.01.051. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-43649089685&doi=10.1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Thompson J, Burkhart H, Daly R, Dearani J, Joyce L, Suri R, Schaff H. Anticoagulation early after mechanical valve replacement: Improved management with patient self-testing. J Thor Cardiovasc Surg 2013;146(3):599–604.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.03.088. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84881616330&doi=10.1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tripodi A. Prothrombin time international normalized ratio monitoring by selftesting. Curr Opin Hematol 2004; 11(3):141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IUPESM and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.School of Computing and EngineeringUniversity of West LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.ITI / LARSySUniversity of MadeiraFunchalPortugal
  4. 4.College of Nursing, Midwifery and HealthcareUniversity of West LondonLondonUK
  5. 5.Design SchoolLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations