PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12(03): 664-674
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732424
Research Article

Provider Preferences for Patient-Generated Health Data Displays in Pediatric Asthma: A Participatory Design Approach

Victoria L. Tiase
1   College of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
2   The Value Institute, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, United States
,
Sarah E. Wawrzynski
1   College of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Katherine A. Sward
1   College of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Guilherme Del Fiol
3   Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Catherine Staes
1   College of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Charlene Weir
3   Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Mollie R. Cummins
1   College of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective There is a lack of evidence on how to best integrate patient-generated health data (PGHD) into electronic health record (EHR) systems in a way that supports provider needs, preferences, and workflows. The purpose of this study was to investigate provider preferences for the graphical display of pediatric asthma PGHD to support decisions and information needs in the outpatient setting.

Methods In December 2019, we conducted a formative evaluation of information display prototypes using an iterative, participatory design process. Using multiple types of PGHD, we created two case-based vignettes for pediatric asthma and designed accompanying displays to support treatment decisions. Semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with six participants were used to evaluate the display usability and determine provider preferences.

Results We identified provider preferences for display features, such as the use of color to indicate different levels of abnormality, the use of patterns to trend PGHD over time, and the display of environmental data. Preferences for display content included the amount of information and the relationship between data elements.

Conclusion Overall, provider preferences for PGHD include a desire for greater detail, additional sources, and visual integration with relevant EHR data. In the design of PGHD displays, it appears that the visual synthesis of multiple PGHD elements facilitates the interpretation of the PGHD. Clinicians likely need more information to make treatment decisions when PGHD displays are introduced into practice. Future work should include the development of interactive interface displays with full integration of PGHD into EHR systems.

Keywords

analysis - design - data visualization - self-management - mHealth - smartphone

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and was reviewed by University of Utah Institutional Review Board.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 17. April 2021

Angenommen: 13. Juni 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
21. Juli 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Serebrisky D, Wiznia A. Pediatric asthma: a global epidemic. Ann Glob Health 2019; 85 (01) 6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Backman H, Räisänen P, Hedman L. et al. Increased prevalence of allergic asthma from 1996 to 2006 and further to 2016-results from three population surveys. Clin Exp Allergy 2017; 47 (11) 1426-1435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fuhlbrigge AL. Challenges in childhood asthma mortality persist despite advances in care. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2018; 6 (03) 1037-1038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Anderson K, Burford O, Emmerton L. App chronic disease checklist: protocol to evaluate mobile apps for chronic disease self-management. JMIR Res Protoc 2016; 5 (04) e204-e204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chen C, Haddad D, Selsky J. et al. Making sense of mobile health data: an open architecture to improve individual- and population-level health. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14 (04) e112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT. Conceptualizing a data infrastructure for the capture, use, and sharing of patient-generated health data in care delivery and research through 2024. Accessed February 1, 2020 at: https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/onc_pghd_final_white_paper.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fox S, Rainie L. The Web at 25 in the US Pew Research Internet Project. Accessed February 1, 2020 at: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2014/03/PIP_Report_Future_of_the_Internet_Predictions_031114.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Papadopoulos NG, Čustović A, Cabana MD. et al. Pediatric asthma: an unmet need for more effective, focused treatments. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2019; 30 (01) 7-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pinnock H, Slack R, Pagliari C, Price D, Sheikh A. Understanding the potential role of mobile phone-based monitoring on asthma self-management: qualitative study. Clin Exp Allergy 2007; 37 (05) 794-802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Genes N, Violante S, Cetrangol C, Rogers L, Schadt EE, Chan YY. From smartphone to EHR: a case report on integrating patient-generated health data. NPJ Digit Med 2018; 1 (01) 23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Saripalle RK. Leveraging FHIR to integrate activity data with electronic health record. Health Technol (Berl) 2020; 10 (01) 341-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Abdolkhani R, Gray K, Borda A, DeSouza R. Patient-generated health data management and quality challenges in remote patient monitoring. JAMIA Open 2019; 2 (04) 471-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wright MC, Borbolla D, Waller RG. et al. Critical care information display approaches and design frameworks: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Biomed Inform X 2019; 3: 100041
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Adler-Milstein J, Nong P. Early experiences with patient generated health data: health system and patient perspectives. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (10) 952-959
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Demiris G, Iribarren SJ, Sward K, Lee S, Yang R. Patient generated health data use in clinical practice: a systematic review. Nurs Outlook 2019; 67 (04) 311-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Reading MJ, Merrill JA. Converging and diverging needs between patients and providers who are collecting and using patient-generated health data: an integrative review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (06) 759-771
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Nittas V, Lun P, Ehrler F, Puhan MA, Mütsch M. Electronic patient-generated health data to facilitate disease prevention and health promotion: scoping review. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (10) e13320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Tiase VL, Hull W, McFarland MM. et al. Patient-generated health data and electronic health record integration: a scoping review. JAMIA Open 2020; 3 (04) 619-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Evans SC, Roberts MC, Keeley JW. et al. Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians' decision-making: validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies. Int J Clin Health Psychol 2015; 15 (02) 160-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kim J. Scenarios in information seeking and information retrieval research: a methodological application and discussion. Libr Inf Sci Res 2012; 34 (04) 300-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA 2000; 283 (13) 1715-1722
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Tiase VL, Sward KA, Del Fiol G, Staes C, Weir C, Cummins MR. Patient-generated health data in pediatric asthma: exploratory study of providers' information needs. JMIR Pediatr Parent 2021; 4 (01) e25413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Gordon IE. Theories of Visual Perception. Vol. 3. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 2004
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wagemans J, Elder JH, Kubovy M. et al. A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychol Bull 2012; 138 (06) 1172-1217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ratwani R. Electronic health records and improved patient care: opportunities for applied psychology. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2017; 26 (04) 359-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bian J, Weir C, Unni P. et al. Interactive visual displays for interpreting the results of clinical trials: formative evaluation with case vignettes. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20 (06) e10507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nelson SD, Del Fiol G, Hanseler H, Crouch BI, Cummins MR. Software prototyping: a case report of refining user requirements for a health information exchange dashboard. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (01) 22-32
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rudin RS, Fanta CH, Predmore Z. et al. Core components for a clinically integrated mHealth app for asthma symptom monitoring. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8 (04) 1031-1043
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Shneiderman B. The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. Paper presented at: Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, Boulder, Colorado, United States. ; September 3–6, 1996: 336-343
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tufte ER. The visual display of quantitative information. Vol. 2. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Wickens CD, Andre AD. Proximity compatibility and information display: effects of color, space, and object display on information integration. Hum Factors 1990; 32 (01) 61-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 International Design Foundation. Gestalt principles. Accessed February 1, 2020 at: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/gestalt-principles
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Aigner W, Miksch S, Schumann H. et al. Visualization of Time-Oriented Data. London: Springer Science & Business Media; 2011
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Wang TD, Wongsuphasawat K, Plaisant C, Shneiderman B. Extracting insights from electronic health records: case studies, a visual analytics process model, and design recommendations. J Med Syst 2011; 35 (05) 1135-1152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Tufte ER, Goeler NH, Benson R. Envisioning information. Vol. 126. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Nathan RA, Sorkness CA, Kosinski M. et al. Development of the asthma control test: a survey for assessing asthma control. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004; 113 (01) 59-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Aigner W, Miksch S, Müller W. et al. Visualizing time-oriented data—a systematic view. Comput Graph 2007; 31 (03) 401-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Lor M, Koleck TA, Bakken S. Information visualizations of symptom information for patients and providers: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (02) 162-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Peters D, Davis S, Calvo RA, Sawyer SM, Smith L, Foster JM. Young people's preferences for an asthma self-management app highlight psychological needs: a participatory study. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19 (04) e113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Spinuzzi C. The methodology of participatory design. Tech Commun (Washington) 2005; 52 (02) 163-174
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Six JM, Macefield R. How to determine the right number of participants for usability studies. UXmatters. Accessed February 1, 2020 at: https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2016/01/how-to-determine-the-right-number-of-participants-for-usability-studies.php
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Nielsen J, Landauer TK. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, United States. , April 24–29, 1993: 206-213
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Lazar J, Feng JH, Hochheiser H. Research methods in human-computer interaction. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Lewis JR. IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum Comput Interact 1995; 7 (01) 57-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Wang EH, Zhou L, Chen SK, Hill K, Parmanto B. An mHealth platform for supporting clinical data integration into augmentative and alternative communication service delivery: User-centered design and usability evaluation. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2018; 5 (02) e14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL. et al; REDCap Consortium. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019; 95: 103208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011; 2: 53-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005; 15 (09) 1277-1288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Hochstenbach LMJ, Courtens AM, Zwakhalen SMG, Vermeulen J, van Kleef M, de Witte LP. Co-creative development of an eHealth nursing intervention: self-management support for outpatients with cancer pain. Appl Nurs Res 2017; 36: 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Voorend-van Bergen S, Vaessen-Verberne AA, Brackel HJ. et al. Monitoring strategies in children with asthma: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax 2015; 70 (06) 543-550
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar