Advertisement

Activity Theory: A Comparison of HCI Theories for the Analysis of Healthcare Technology

  • Fabian Wiser
  • Carolin Durst
  • Nilmini Wickramasinghe
Chapter
Part of the Healthcare Delivery in the Information Age book series (Healthcare Delivery Inform. Age)

Abstract

Today, one of the fastest growing information technology sector is healthcare. However, past experiences have revealed that the installation of healthcare information technology is often accompanied with flaws which can cause harm to the patients’ lives and health. In order to tackle this risks by analysing these systems we suggest the human–computer interaction theory Activity Theory. This work highlights the benefits of Activity Theory by comparing it with four other theories: Actor-Network Theory, Structuration Theory, Distributed Cognition, and Situated Action. The result of this qualitative literature review underpins the usefulness of Activity Theory for examining complex technological systems in healthcare.

Keywords

Activity theory Socio-technical systems Systems design Successful implementation Complex systems 

References

  1. Allert, H., & Richter, C. (2007). Activity systems and context working as core concepts in modeling socio-technical systems. Proceedings of the 2007 workshop on Representation models and techniques for improving e-learning, pp. 28–39.Google Scholar
  2. Bertelsen, O. W., & Bødker, S. (2003). Activity theory. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), HCI models, theories, and frameworks (pp. 291–324). San Francisco: Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-155860808-5/50011-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Craib, I. (1992). Anthony giddens. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Cressman, D. (2009). A brief overview of actor-network theory: Punctualization, heterogeneous engineering & translation. Paper for Simon Frasier University ACT Lab/Centre for Policy Research on Science & Technology (CPROST), 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.3126/bodhi.v5i1.8053
  5. Dankert, R. (2011). Using Actor-Network Theory (ANT) doing research. Retrieved June 12, 2016, from http://ritskedankert.nl/using-actor-network-theory-ant-doing-research/
  6. Doerry, E. (1995). Evaluating distributed environments based on communicative efficacy [inproceedings]. Retrieved from http://www.sigchi.org/chi95/Electronic/documnts/doctoral/ed_bdy.htm
  7. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (1st ed.). Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  8. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research : Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar
  10. Flor, N. V., & Hutchins, E. L. (1991). A case study of team programming during perfective software maintenance. In Empirical studies of programmers: Fourth workshop in proceedings (p. 36).Google Scholar
  11. Gehman, J. (2008). Structuration theory summary. Retrieved April 01, 2016, from http://www.joelgehman.com/resources/Giddens1984StructurationTheorySummary.pdf. Accessed on April 1, 2016.
  12. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society : Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Groves, P. S., Meisenbach, R. J., & Scott-Cawiezell, J. (2011). Keeping patients safe in healthcare organizations: a structuration theory of safety culture. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(8), 1846–1855.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Halverson, C. A. (2002). Activity theory and distributed cognition: Or what does CSCW need to DO with theories? Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11, 243–267.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015298005381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hazlehurst, B., McMullen, C. K., & Gorman, P. N. (2007). Distributed cognition in the heart room: how situation awareness arises from coordinated communications during cardiac surgery. Journal of biomedical informatics, 40(5), 539–551.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hutchins, W. J. (1986). Machine translation: Past, present, future. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  17. IDC. (2016). Worldwide IT spending forecast to reach $2.7 trillion in 2020 led by financial services, manufacturing, and healthcare, according to IDC. Retrieved October 1, 2016, from https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS41699316
  18. Jones, M. R., & Karsten, H. (2008). Giddens’s structuration theory and information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 127–157. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2017378.2017385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Activity theory in HCI: Fundaments and reflections. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
  21. Korpela, M. (2000). Activity analysis as a method for information systems development: General introduction and experiments from Nigeria and Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12(1). pp. 191–210.Google Scholar
  22. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kuutti, K. (2010). Where are the Ionians of user experience research? In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: extending boundaries (pp. 715–718). New York, NY: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1868914.1869012
  24. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action : How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Leveson, N. G., & Turner, C. S. (1993). An investigation of the Therac-25 accidents. Computer, 26(7), 18–41.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.1993.274940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miettinen, R. (1999). The riddle of things: Activity theory and actor network theory as approaches to studying innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(3), 170–195.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039909524725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miettinen, R. (2009). Dialogue and creativity: Activity theory in the study of science, technology and innovations. Berlin: Lehmanns. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lETzCQAAQBAJ.Google Scholar
  29. Nardi, B. A. (1993). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In Proceedings East–West conference on human–computer interaction (pp. 352–359). Moscow: ICSTI.Google Scholar
  30. Nyandiere, C. M., Kamuzora, F., & Lukandu, I. A. (2012). Application of structuration theory and activity theory in enterprise resources planning systems implementation for universities. Computer Technology and Application, 3, 385–394.Google Scholar
  31. Riechert, J., Durst, C., & Wickramasinghe, N. (2016). The application of activity theory to explain collaborative technology use in healthcare: The case of a chemotherapy ordering system. Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 989–997.Google Scholar
  32. Statista. (2016). Worldwide information technology (IT) spending forecast from 2014 to 2019 (in billion U.S. dollars). Retrieved October 1, 2016, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/480063/worldwide-it-spending-forecast/
  33. Suchman, L. (1986). Plans and situated actions. New York: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  34. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wiser, F., Durst, C., & Wickramasinghe, N. (2017). Analyzing collaborative patient care solutions using activity theory. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 901–909.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabian Wiser
    • 1
  • Carolin Durst
    • 2
  • Nilmini Wickramasinghe
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.TU BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany
  2. 2.University Erlangen-NurembergNurembergGermany
  3. 3.Deakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  4. 4.Epworth HealthCareRichmondAustralia

Personalised recommendations