User-Centered Design of a National Medical Registry for Tick-Borne Diseases

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 779)


Tick-borne diseases are increasing in a global perspective, with Lyme disease and tick-borne encephalitis as the most frequent. The Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Tick-borne Diseases is preparing the development of a national medical registry for clinical follow-up of patients with tick-borne diseases based on the best practice guidelines and for research purposes. This paper presents the methodological approach of a user-centered design process applied in the initial phase of the registry development. A user workshop identified user needs, requirements and proposed a service workflow for the registry operation. As the next step, a simulation of the proposed service workflow was performed in a clinical laboratory together with end-user groups. The main contribution of this paper lies on the methodological descriptions of the user-centered design process, and how to facilitate the active contribution of end-users in a technical development process within a health care context.


User-centered design Medical registry Simulation Tick-borne diseases 



The authors thank the participants of the study for their disinterested contribution. Special thanks to Åsmund Rodvig Somdal for technical support and assistance in the laboratory simulations. Financial support was provided by the Regional Research Fund of Agder [30] in Norway with Grant number 272978.


  1. 1.
    Jongejan, F., Uilenberg, G.: The global importance of ticks. Parasitology 129(S1), S3–S14 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dantas-Torres, F., Chomel, B.B., Otranto, D.: Ticks and tick-borne diseases: a one health perspective. Trends Parasitol. 28(10), 437–446 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gray, J.S., Dautel, H., Estrada-Peña, A., Kahl, O., Lindgren, E.: Effects of climate change on ticks and tick-borne diseases in Europe. Interdiscip. Perspect. Infect. Dis. (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koedel, U., Fingerle, V., Pfister, H.W.: Lyme neuroborreliosis—epidemiology, diagnosis and management. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 11(8), 446 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Danielová, V., Schwarzová, L., Materna, J., Daniel, M., Metelka, L., Holubová, J., Kříž, B.: Tick-borne encephalitis virus expansion to higher altitudes correlated with climate warming. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 298, 68–72 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindquist, L., Vapalahti, O.: Tick-borne encephalitis. Lancet 371(9627), 1861–1871 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eliassen, K.E., Berild, D., Reiso, H., Grude, N., Christophersen, K.S., Finckenhagen, C., Lindbæk, M.: Incidence and antibiotic treatment of erythema migrans in Norway 2005–2009. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 8(1), 1–8 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilking, H., Stark, K.: Trends in surveillance data of human lyme borreliosis from six federal states in Eastern Germany, 2009–2012. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 5(3), 219–224 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norwegian Institute of Public Health: Report on Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases (2015).
  10. 10.
    Lindquist, L.: Tick-borne encephalitis. In: Handbook of Clinical Neurology, vol. 123, pp. 531–559. Elsevier (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Müller, I., Freitag, M.H., Poggensee, G., Scharnetzky, E., Straube, E., Schoerner, C., Norris, D.E.: Evaluating frequency, diagnostic quality, and cost of lyme borreliosis testing in Germany: a retrospective model analysis. Clin. Dev. Immunol. (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lorentzen, Å.R., Forselv, K.J., Helgeland, G., Salvesen, R.E., Sand, G., Flemmen, H.Ø., Bø, M.H., Nordaa, L., Roos, A.K., Jim, M.W., Owe, J.F., Nyquist, K.B., Schüler, S., Eikeland, R., Mygland, Å., Ljøstad, U.: Lyme neuroborreliosis: do we treat according to guidelines? J. Neurol. 264(7), 1506–1510 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Tick-borne Diseases.
  14. 14.
    Goldzweig, C.L., Towfigh, A., Maglione, M., Shekelle, P.G.: Costs and benefits of health information technology: new trends from the literature. Health Aff. 28(2), w282–w293 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
  16. 16.
    Vredenburg, K., Mao, J., Smith, P.W., Carey, T.: A survey of user-centered design practice. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (SIGCHI 2002), pp. 471–478 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lazar, J.: Web Usability- a User-Centered Design Approach. Pearson Education, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S.: Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kushniruk, A.W., Borycki, E.M.: Development of a video coding scheme for analyzing the usability and usefulness of health information systems. In: CSHI, pp. 68–73 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Svanæs, D., Alsos, O.A., Dahl, Y.: Usability testing of mobile ICT for clinical settings: methodological and practical challenges. Int. J. Med. Inf. 79(4), e24–e34 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smaradottir, B., Fensli, R.W., Boysen, E.S., Martinez, S.: Infrastructure for health care simulation: recommendations from the model for telecare alarm services project. In: The International Conference on Health Informatics and Medical systems (HIMS 2017), pp. 64–69, CSREA Press, Las Vegas (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li, A.C., Kannry, J.L., Kushniruk, A., Chrimes, D., McGinn, T.G., Edonyabo, D., Mann, D.M.: Integrating usability testing and think-aloud protocol analysis with “near-live” clinical simulations in evaluating clinical decision support. Int. J. Med. Inf. 81(11), 761–772 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Borycki, E., Kushniruk, A.: Identifying and preventing technology-induced error using simulations: application of usability engineering techniques. Healthc. Q. 8(Sp) (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smaradottir, B.F.: The steps of user-centered design in health information technology development: recommendations from a PhD research study. In: International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), pp. 116–121. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Norwegian Centre for Research Data.
  27. 27.
    Kushniruk, A.W., Patel, V.L.: Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems. J. Biomed. Inf. 37(1), 56–76 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jaspers, M.A.: Comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: methodological aspects and empirical evidence. Int. J. Med. Inf. 78(5), 340–353 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ritter, F.E., Baxter, G.D., Churchill, E.F.: Foundations for Designing User-Centered Systems. Springer, London (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information and Communication TechnologyUniversity of AgderGrimstadNorway
  2. 2.The Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Tick-Borne DiseasesSørlandet HospitalArendalNorway

Personalised recommendations