Advertisement

An Integrated Patient-Centric Approach for Situated Research on Total Hip Replacement: ESTHER

  • Juan Jiménez GarciaEmail author
  • Natalia RomeroEmail author
  • David KeysonEmail author
  • Paul HavingaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

Homecare can reduce the care workload that professionals and health institutions are facing due to increasing need for care that our current society demands. Relying on the emergence of technological innovations in homecare could empower patients to undertake a more active role in the care practice. Understanding the value of technologies to support patients’ awareness and reflection of their own progress is considered as an important step in designing appropriate mechanisms that fit patients’ needs. This chapter discusses an integrated patient-centric approach to design homecare technologies considering patients’ personal experiences and social context as crucial aspects when providing care support. This approach proposes the development of in-situ methods and tools to provide a holistic view of patients’ care experience through the design of interventions in the context of use. The development of Experience Sampling for Total Hip Replacement (ESTHER) is presented to illustrate the benefits and challenges of conducting in-situ research by supporting the collection of physical activity and emotional states of patients during the progress of their recovery. The transition from open and simple interventions to more complex and specific ones opens the discussion of the role of technology to introduce new practices that uncover richer experiences by influencing patients’ care activities via self-reporting and self-reflecting mechanisms. The subtle introduction of technologies to uncover general and more specific experiences does not only address research needs, more importantly it brings an understanding on the acceptance of technologies in patients’ care practices. The consequence is a new generation of “research to application” tools that bring a closer understanding of patients’ experiences and context to inform the design of supportive homecare technologies that embrace a more active role of patients.

Keywords

Physical Activity Recovery Process Experience Sampling Method Physical Performance Measurement Episodic Experience 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially financed by SENIOR project consortium. Special thanks to the Department of Orthopaedics of Reinier de Graaf hospital for their support in gathering participants which kindly volunteer to contribute to this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Arden, N., & Nevitt, M. C. (2006). Osteoarthritis: epidemiology. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, 20(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barrett, L. F., & Barrett, D. J. (2001). An introduction to computerized experience sampling in psychology. Social Science Computer Review, 19(2), 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brownson, R. C., Tegan, K. B., & Douglas, A. L. (2005). Declining rates of physical activity in the united states: what are the contributors? Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 421–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Busija, L., Osborne, R. H., Nilsdotter, A., Buchbinder, R., & Roos, E. M. (2008). Magnitude and meaningfulness of change in sf-36 scores in four types of orthopedic surgery. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Consolvo, S., et al. (2008). Activity sensing in the wild: A field trial of ubifit garden. In Proceedings of CHI ‘08, (pp. 1797–1806). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Consolvo, S., Klasnja, P., McDonald, D. W. & Landay, J. A. (2009). Goal-setting considerations for persuasive technologies that encourage physical activity. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology (p. 8). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Consolvo, S., Harrison, B., Smith, I., Chen, M., Everitt, K., Froehlich, J., et al. (2006). Conducting in situ evaluations for and with ubiquitous computing technologies. Journal of Human Computer Interactions, 22, 107–122.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Desmet, P. M. A., Vastenburg, M. H., Van Bel, D. & Romero, N. (2012). Pick-A-Mood; development and application of a pictorial mood-reporting instrument. In Proceedings of the 8th International Design and Emotion Conference (pp. 11–14).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dohnke, B., Knäuper, B., & Müller-Fahrnow, W. (2005). Perceived self-efficacy gained from, and health effects of, a rehabilitation program after hip joint replacement. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 53(4), 585–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fielden, J., Scott, S., & Horne, J. (2003). An investigation of patient satisfaction following discharge after total hip replacement surgery. Orthopedic Nursing, 22, 429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fortina, S., Gambera, D., Crainz, E., & Ferrata, P. (2005). Recovery of physical function and patient’s satisfaction after total hip replacement (thr) surgery supported by a tailored guide book. Acta bio-medica: Atenei Parmensis, 76, 152–156.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fortmann, J., Stratmann, T., Poppinga, B., Boll, S., & Heuten, W. (2013). Make me move at work! An ambient light display to increase physical activity. Pervasive Health, 2013, Venice, Italy.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grant, S., & St John, W. (2009). Recovery from total hip replacement surgery: “it’s not just physical”. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 1612–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grönvall, E. & Lundberg, S. (2014). On challenges designing the home as a place for care. In: Pervasive Health: State-of-the-Art & Beyond.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Groönvall, E. & Verdezoto, N. (2013). Beyond self-monitoring: understanding non-functional aspects of home-based healthcare technology. In: Proceedings of UbiComp 2013. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harper, T., Rodden, T., Rogers, Y. & Sellen, A. (2008). Being human: Human computer interaction in the year 2020. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/hci2020/download.html
  17. 17.
    Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience—a research agenda. Behaviour and Information Technology, 25, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hassling, L., Nordfeldt, S., Eriksson, H., & Timpka, T. (2005). Use of cultural probes for representation of chronic disease experience: Exploration of an innovative method for design of supportive technologies. Journal of Technology and Health Care, 13, 87–95 (IOS Press).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A. & Czikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks:Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Intille, S. S., et al. (2003). Tools for studying behavior and technology in natural settings. In Proceedings of Ubicomp’03 (pp. 738–739). ACM Press, New York.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jiménez García, J., Boerema, S., Hermens, H., & Havinga, P. (2010). Fine-tuning a context-aware system application by using user-centred design methods. In Proceedings IADIS 2010 (pp. 323–327).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jiménez Garcia, J., Romero, N., & Keyson, D. (2011). Capturing patients’ daily life experiences after total hip replacement. In Proceedings of Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare 2011 (pp. 226–229).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jiménez Garcia, J., Romero, N., Boerema, S., Keyson, D., & Havinga, P. (2013). ESTHER: A portable sensor toolkit to collect and monitor total hip replacement patient data. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM MobiHoc’ 13 (pp. 7–12). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li, I. (2009a). Designing personal informatics applications and tools that facilitate monitoring of behaviors. In Proceedings of UIST’09.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li, I. (2009b). Beyond counting steps: Using context to improve monitoring of physical activity. In Proceedings of Ubicomp’09 Doctoral Colloquium.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li, I., Dey, A., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. In Proceedings of CHI’10 (pp. 557–566). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li, I., Dey, A., & Forlizzi, J. (2011). Understanding my data, myself: supporting self-reflection with ubicomp technologies. In Proceedings of UbiComp’11 (pp. 405–414). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lin, J. J., Mamykina, L., Lindtner, S., Delajoux, G., & Strub, H. B. (2006). Fish’n’Steps: Encouraging physical activity with an interactive computer game. In Proceedings of UbiComp’06 (pp. 261–278). Springer.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Macario, A., Schilling, P., Rubio, R., Bhalla, A., & Goodman, S. (2013). What questions do patients undergoing lower extremity joint replacement surgery have? BMC Health Services Research, 3, 11.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maly, M., Costigan, P., & Olney, S. (2006). Determinants of self-report outcome measures in people with knee osteoarthritis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87(1), 96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moore, B., Van Kleek, M., Karger, D. R., & Schraefel, M. (2010). Assisted self reflection: Combining lifetracking, sensemaking, and personal information management. In Proceedings of CHI’10, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Munson, S. (2012). Mindfulness, reflection, and persuasion in personal informatics. In Proceedings of CHI’12, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Myin-Germeys, I., Oorschot, M., Collip, D., Lataster, J., Deles-paul, P., & Van Os, J. (2009). Experience sampling research in psychopathology: opening the black box of daily life. Psychological Medicine, 39, 1533–1547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    FuelBand and Nike+app: Nike’s new fuel SE highlights. (2013). http://www.fastcodesign.com/3020080/nikes-new-fuelband-se-highlights-its-ux-flaws. Retrieved from 21 January 2014.
  35. 35.
    Outcome measures in patient care. (2013). http://www.apta.org/OutcomeMeasures/. Retrieved from 21 January 2014.
  36. 36.
    Pirzadeh, A., He, L., & Stolterman, E. (2013). Personal informatics and reflection: A critical examination of the nature of reflection. In Proceedings of CHI’13 Extended Abstracts (pp. 1979–1988). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rogers, Y. (2011). Interaction design gone wild: striving for wild theory. Interactions, 18, 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Romero, N., Rek, M., Jimenez Garcia, J., & van Boeijen, A. (2013). Motivation to self-report: Capturing user experiences in field studies. In Proceedings of CLIHC’13, Springer.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Roto, V., Law, E., Vermeeren, A., & Hoonhout, J. (Eds.). (2011). White paper: User experience white paper. in Outcome of the Dagstuhl Seminar on Demarcating User Experience, Vol. 39 (pp. 1161–117).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Russel, J. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Salmon, P., Hall, G., Peerbhoy, D., Shenkin, A., & Parker, C. (2001). Recovery from hip and knee arthro-plasty: patients’ perspective on pain, function, quality of life, and well being up to 6 months postopera- tively. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82, 36–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sergio, F. (2013). Healthcare needs innovation now. In Mobile Ecosystems Evolving, Frog Design. http://www.frogdesign.com/pdf/mobile-ecosystems-evolving.pdf
  43. 43.
    Stevens, M., van den Akker-Scheek, I., Spriensma, A., Boss, N., Dierck, L., & van Horn, J. (2004). The groningen orthopedic exit strategy (goes): a home-based support program for total hip and knee arthroplasty patients after shortened hospital stay. Patient Education and Counseling, 54, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stratford, P., Kennedy, D., Pagura, S., & Gollish, J. (2003). The relationship between self-report and performance-related measures: questioning the content validity of timed tests. Arthritis and Rheumatology, 49, 535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Van den Akker-Scheek, I. (2007). Recovery after short-stay total hip and knee arthroplasty. The Netherlands: Thesis University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vastenburg, M. H., & Romero, N. (2010). Adaptive experience sampling: addressing the dynamic nature of in-situ user studies. In: ISAmI International Symposium on Ambient Intelligence, Vol. 72 (pp. 197–200). Guimaraes. (Springer Advances in Soft Computing)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vastenburg, M. H., Romero, N. A., van Bel, D. T., & Desmet P. M. A. (2011). PMRI: development of a pictorial mood reporting instrument. In: Proceedings of CHI 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Williams, M., Oberst, M., Bjorklund, B., & Hughes, S. (1996). Family care giving in cases of hip fracture. Rehabilitation Nursing, 21, 124–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wong, J., Wong, S., Brooks, E., & Yabsley, R. (1999). Home readiness and recovery pattern after total hip replacement. Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing, 3, 210–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Woolhead, G., Donovan, J., & Dieppe, P. (2005). Outcomes of total knee replacement: a qualitative study. Rheumatology, 44(8), 1032–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yoshiuchi, K., Yamamoto, Y., & Akabayashi, A. (2008). Application of ecological momentary assessment in stress-related diseases. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 2, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ziefle, M., Röcker, C., & Holzinger, A. (2014). Current trends and challenges for pervasive health technologies: From technical innovation to user integration. In Pervasive Health: State-of-the-Art & Beyond.Google Scholar

Further Readings

  1. 53.
    Bont de, C., Ouden den, P. H., Schifferstein, R., Smulders, F. & Voort van der, M. (Eds.). (2013). Advanced design methods for successful innovation. Den Haag: Design United.Google Scholar
  2. 54.
    Brubaker, J. R., Hirano, S. H., & Hayes, G. R. (2011). Lost in translation: Three challenges for the collection and use of data in personal informatics. Paper Presented at the CHI 2011 Workshop on Personal Informatics & HCI: Design, Theory, & Social Implications, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
  3. 55.
    Medynskiy, Y., & Mynatt E. (2010). Salud!: An open infrastructure for developing and deploying health self-management applications. In PervasiveHealth 2010 (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  4. 56.
    Visser, F. S. (2009). Bringing the everyday life of people into design (Doctoral thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2009). ISBN 978-90-9024244-6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electrical, Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Design EngineeringDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations