Advertisement

MyLung: Design and Testing of a Mobile-Based Assistive Technology for COPD Patients

  • Riad AlharbeyEmail author
  • Samir Chatterjee
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11491)

Abstract

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is one of those progressive diseases that deteriorate lung functions. When patients cannot breathe, nothing else in their lives matters. Moreover, a lack of relevant and updated information about the causes and consequences of the disease can exacerbate the problems of health literacy, information accessibility, and medical adherence. The objective of this study is to design an innovative mobile-based assistive technology through the lens of design science research (DSR). This IT artifact includes three integrative modules that have not been introduced before in the literature: education, risk reduction, and monitoring. The evaluation study uses mixed methods to thoroughly understand how the assistive mobile-based technology can influence patients’ behavioral intention to change their lifestyle. The contribution of this study is the innovative IT artifact that functions as a complete solution for patients and their caregivers. We also discuss few design principles that capture knowledge about designing mobile-based technology and demonstrate the impact of the use of this mobile-based artifact by patients with COPD and their caregivers.

Keywords

Assistive technology Patient empowerment COPD mHealth 

References

  1. 1.
    Celli, B.R., et al.: Standards for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with COPD: a summary of the ATS/ERS position paper. Eur. Respir. J. 23(6), 932–946 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burge, S., Wedzicha, J.A.: COPD exacerbations: definitions and classifications. Eur. Respir. J. 21(41), 46s–53s (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Worth, H., Dhein, Y.: Does patient education modify behaviour in the management of COPD? Patient Educ. Couns. 52(3), 267–270 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown, F.M.: Inside every chronic patient is an acute patient wondering what happened. J. Clin. Psychol. 58(11), 1443–1449 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kumar, S., et al.: Mobile health technology evaluation the mHealth evidence workshop. Am. J. Prev. Med. 45(2), 228–236 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beagley, L.: Educating patients: understanding barriers, learning styles, and teaching techniques. J. Perianesth. Nurs. 26(5), 331–337 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joseph-Williams, N., Elwyn, G., Edwards, A.: Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ. Couns. 94(3), 291–309 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hevner, A., Chatterjee, S.: Design Science Research in Information Systems. Springer, New York (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Newman, S., Steed, L., Mulligan, K.: Self-management interventions for chronic illness. Lancet 9444, 1467–1468 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mueller, J., Davies, A., Harper, S., Jay, C., Todd, C.: Widening access to online health education for lung cancer: a feasibility study, pp. 1–4 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    DHSS: National action plan to improve health literacy (2010). https://health.gov/communication/HLActionPlan/pdf/Health_Lit_Action_Plan_Summary.pdf. Accessed 08 Nov 2016
  14. 14.
    Carré, P.C., et al.: The effect of an information leaflet upon knowledge and awareness of COPD in potential sufferers. Respiration 76(1), 53–60 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feste, C., Anderson, R.M.: Empowerment: from philosophy to practice. Patient Educ. Couns. 26(1), 139–144 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roberts, K.J.: Patient empowerment in the United States: a critical commentary. Health Expect. 2(2), 82–92 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cruz, J., Brooks, D., Marques, A.: Home telemonitoring in COPD: a systematic review of methodologies and patients’ adherence. Int. J. Med. Inf. 83(4), 249–263 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tabak, M., VanderValk, P., Hermens, H., Vollenbroek-Hutten, M., Brusse-Keizer, M.: A telehealth program for self-management of COPD exacerbations and promotion of an active lifestyle: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 9, 935 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hardinge, M., et al.: Using a mobile health application to support self-management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a six-month cohort study. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 15(1), 46 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glanz, K., Bishop, D.B.: The role of behavioral science theory in development and implementation of public health interventions. Annu. Rev. Public Health 31, 399–418 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R., El Sawy, O.A.: Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf. Syst. Res. 3, 36–59 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosenstock, I.M., Strecher, V.J., Becker, M.H.: Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Educ. Behav. 15, 175–183 (1988)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 17(6), 1223–1235 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 28 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bryman, A.: Social Research Methods. OUP, Oxford (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fereday, J., Muir-Cochrane, E.: Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int. J. Qual. Methods 5(1), 80–92 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gregory, P., Barroca, L., Taylor, K., Salah, D., Sharp, H.: Agile challenges in practice: a thematic analysis. In: Lassenius, C., Dingsøyr, T., Paasivaara, M. (eds.) XP 2015. LNBIP, vol. 212, pp. 64–80. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Neuhauser, L., Kreps, G.L., Morrison, K., Athanasoulis, M., Kirienko, N., Van Brunt, D.: Using design science and artificial intelligence to improve health communication: ChronologyMD case example. Patient Educ. Couns. 92, 211–217 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schnall, R., Rojas, M., Travers, J., Brown, W., Bakken, S.: Use of design science for informing the development of a mobile app for persons living with HIV. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings 2014, pp. 1037–1045 (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuijpers, W., Groen, W.G., Aaronson, N.K., van Harten, W.H.: A systematic review of web-based interventions for patient empowerment and physical activity in chronic diseases: relevance for cancer survivors. J Med Internet Res. 15(2), e37 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McAllister, M., Dunn, G., Payne, K., Davies, L., Todd, C.: Patient empowerment: the need to consider it as a measurable patient-reported outcome for chronic conditions (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bourbeau, J.: Integrated disease management for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dirin, A., Nieminen, M.: mLUX: usability and user experience development framework for M-learning. iJIM 9(3), 37–51 (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Choi, W., Tulu, B.: Effective use of user interface and user experience in an mHealth application. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hakemi, A., Bender, J.A.: Understanding pulse oximetry, advantages, and limitations. Home Health Care Manag. Pract. 17(5), 416–418 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35(1), 37–56 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chandra Kruse, L., Seidel, S., Purao, S.: Making Use of design principles. In: Parsons, J., Tuunanen, T., Venable, J., Donnellan, B., Helfert, M., Kenneally, J. (eds.) DESRIST 2016. LNCS, vol. 9661, pp. 37–51. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39294-3_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chatterjee, S.: Writing my next design science research master-piece: but how do i make a theoretical contribution to DSR? In: ECIS2015 Completed Research Papers: Proceedings of 23rd ECIS Conference, Munster, Germany, vol. 28 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of JeddahJeddahKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  2. 2.Claremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations