Pedagogical development · Pedagogy · Social media in higher education · Teaching

Recently got my first ever book chapter published!

As I have mentioned in several earlier blog posts, I have been working on a book chapter, together with Pernilla Josefsson, about the use of Twitter as a complementary communication channel in higher education courses. The chapter is one of many chapters included in the book “Digitalisering av högre utbildning” [Digitalization of higher education], edited by professor Stefan Hrastinski (see picture above), which was published in August. This is the first time I have been working with a text that is meant to be used in teacher education!

The book covers a wide range of topics connected to the use of digital technology in higher education. Most of the chapters are written by University teachers from all over Sweden and include popular science descriptions of personal experiences with the use of digital technologies in their own courses. All chapters are written in Swedish. The chapter that I wrote with Pernilla presents my experiences with using Twitter in one of the courses in communication that I was responsible for at KTH. We present the implementation and results as well as lessons learned. We also introduce our scientific study, based on the Twitter communication, which was carried out during the same course round.

I really enjoyed working with the chapter and I hope other teachers who want to implement Twitter in their courses will find it useful! The scientific study about the use of Twitter in higher education courses is, for the moment, only published in Pernilla’s doctoral thesis. I link to her thesis in this blog post, where I also write about the defense.

You can find more information about the book here:ögre+utbildning

I will write more about this book later on, when I have had the chance to implement some of the ideas from other chapters in my own teaching!

communication · DOME · eHealth · Medical Records Online · Popular science

On the importance of writing press releases about what we do in academia


In my last blog post I wrote about an article on “threats and violence for staff and patient accessible electronic health records”, which was recently published in Cogent Psychology. Earlier this week a press release about the study was published on the Uppsala University media web. Since research on patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) should be of interest to most of us, we thought it would be interesting and important to reach out with our results to the public in this way, and we were of course hoping that someone would pick up the news.

After less than one week, articles based on our press release have been published at the following places (at this point, all the articles we have found are in Swedish):

  • published an article, Nätjournaler ökar rädslan för hot och våld, which was a re-organized version of our original press release. is an online resource, where results from publicly funded research are communicated to the public.
  • published an article with the same name, Nätjournaler ökar rädslan för hot och våld. The editor actually emailed me and asked me to write a summary of the study, so this particular popular science article is written by me and Åsa Cajander. is a venue where scientists get the opportunity to write short, popular science, summaries about their published studies.
  • Dagens medicin published an article, Uppsala inför e-journal i psykiatrin, which actually took the results from our study a bit further. They connected our study to the current work with implementation of psychiatry records online in Region Uppsala! They interviewed both Åsa Cajander and the person in charge of the implementation process at Uppsala University Hospital, Åsa Törnkvist. As one of the researchers following this implementation process, I can without hesitation verify that the concerns of healthcare professionals has been taken seriously.
  • SVT Nyheter published an article, E-journaler ökar oron för hot och våld inom vården, which again took the results from our study a bit further. Even in this case they interviewed Åsa Cajander and they also interviewed a representative from the Swedish Association of Health Professionals in Uppsala! Once again, they also connected our results to the ongoing implementation of psychiatry records online in Region Uppsala.

I have never before seen this kind of interest in a study I have been working on! Not only did different media sites publish versions of our press release, but they also conducted new interviews and investigations based on the results we published. I think it’s safe to say that this would not have happened if we hadn’t published that initial press release last Tuesday. I think there is an important lesson to be learned here – it’s important to write both popular science and scientific version of our studies, especially when the research concerns as all as is the case with PAEHRs (we are all patients and/or relatives of patients, right?). We will definitely continue to write press releases about our studies and the next one, about the patients’ attitudes towards and experiences with PAEHRs, will be published very soon on the Uppsala University media web!

In summary, we can conclude that, yeah, someone picked up the news!  🙂

DOME · eHealth · Medical Records Online

New article published: “On threats and violence for staff and patient accessible electronic health records”!


Last Friday, an article written by Ulrika Åkerstedt, Åsa Cajander, me and Ture Ålander was published in the open access journal Cogent Psychology. The article, “On threats and violence for staff and patient accessible electronic health records”, presents results from a survey study conducted with healthcare professionals from an emergency department and a psychiatric department, respectively. Patients at the emergency department could access their electronic health records online since about a year back, while patients at the psychiatry department did not yet have this access. The study showed that 40% of the participating healthcare professionals believed that risks of threats and violence increase after launch of patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs). The study did not show any correlation with more (self-reported) instances of threats and violence.

You can of course read more in the open access article, which you can find here.

Early this morning a press release was published, which introduced the study and linked to the article. This is the very first time I have taken part in work that has been announced in that way! You can read the press release (in Swedish) here.

Here is the article’s abstract:

Does patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHR) result in increased risk of threats and violence? This study was conducted one year after launching PAEHR in Uppsala to examine whether staff whose patients had gained access to the patient portal perceived greater risks of threats and violence, and were exposed to more threats and violence, than those whose patients had not yet gained access. A total of 174 (35%) professionals responded to a web survey. 83 were from the emergency department, whose patients had online electronic health record access, and 91 were from the psychiatric department, whose patients had not. 40% of all participating professionals believed that risks of threats and violence increase after launch. The results did not support a correlation with more incidents of threats and violence, and only one respondent reported that patient access had played any significant negative role in relation to an incident.

Very soon, another press release will be published about the DOME consortium’s work on PAEHRs, so stay tuned for more!! 🙂

DOME · eHealth · Medical Records Online · National patient survey

Back after a blog break!


Those who follow my blog regularly have probably realized that I haven’t made any new posts during the last couple of months. I took a break from the blog since I needed a few weeks of 100% vacation and I also had several writing and analysis tasks going on in parallel. The fact is that I wanted to do as much as possible before my position as postdoc at Uppsala University ended last Thursday! I will of course write a blog post where I summarize my time at Uppsala University. I still, however, have quite a few things left to do, especially when it comes to writing papers, so I will continue to work closely with my colleagues in the HTO group at Uppsala University as well as in the DOME consortium.

During my period off the blog quite a few things have happened. Two journal articles were accepted and one of them was actually published open access last week! One is about threats and violence in relation to patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) and the other is an overview paper about the national patient survey (focusing on Swedish patients’ attitudes towards and experiences with PAEHRs), which I have written about many times before on this blog. Both of these articles are expected to draw a lot of attention, so they will be announced in press releases! The first of these releases might go online already on Monday. Aside from working on press releases and dealing with copyediting issues for these two articles I also finalized a draft of the first journal article about results from the extensive interview/observation/survey study at Uppsala University Hospital. The article, which covers the survey part, will be submitted very soon. I also wrote major parts of two journal articles where we compare patient groups from the national patient survey and smaller parts on some other papers related to that study. Last, I also worked on two grant applications – one about patient accessible psychiatry records and one about technology support for better inclusion of visually impaired pupils in primary school. So, a lot of things have been written during these last months and I will of course write individual blog posts about all of these articles/applications.

Aside from writing I have also completed a preliminary analysis of the interviews with physicians in the interview/observation/survey study at Uppsala University Hospital. We definitely have some interesting results and very soon we will meet in the project group to discuss the results and how to move forward. I will of course get back to this work in other posts during the autumn.

From next week I will write blog posts more regularly and I will most probably start with a post about the upcoming press release!


(In case you were wondering – I took the above picture during my last visit to Öland)

conference · Uppsala Health Summit

Uppsala Health Summit 2018, part 3: the workshop planning

Pre-conference report

One of the major tasks for the program committee for Uppsala Health Summit was to discuss the development of the eight workshops that were held during the summit. As I mentioned in an earlier post about the summit, at least one member from each workshop team was represented in the committee. In this way, we could have detailed planning sessions among the workshop organizers and more general discussions in the program committee.

One of the important things we discussed during the committee meetings was the general perspectives that should be taken into account in all workshops. These were:

  • A global perspective – the situation regarding cancer care is very different in low and middle income countries, both when it comes e.g. to infrastructure and access to treatment, compared to high income countries. Forum for Africa Studies was represented in the program committee to make sure this perspective was sufficiently handled.
  • A child perspective – there are very troubling differences regarding diagnoses and treatment outcome between children and adults. For different reasons, children are e.g. often not diagnosed early enough. The Swedish Childhood Cancer Fund was represented in the program committee to make sure this perspective was sufficiently covered.
  • An equal access perspective – the points above relate to equal access, but there are also other differences to be found e.g. within countries and between different other demographic groups.

These perspectives, or themes, were discussed in depth during the first meetings and I think we managed to integrate them in a good way in all workshops. The perspectives are very important to consider when discussing cancer care and they did not only occur in the workshops but also in the plenary sessions. I will write more blog posts about these perspectives, and how they were covered in the different parts of the summit, in later posts in this blog series. I will of course also get back to the results of the workshops.

The first deliverable from the program committee was the pre-conference report, which was sent out to all delegates prior to the summit (see blog picture). Aside from an introductory section and some other pages with information and interviews with sponsors, the report included one section for each of the workshops, respectively. The idea behind this report was mainly to introduce the areas behind each of the workshops and some of the challenges and opportunities related to them. You can find the pre-conference sections about each of the workshops here. I really recommend you to read them, since they sum up many of the major challenges that we face in cancer care today.



Uppsala Health Summit, part 1

Uppsala Health Summit, part 2


conference · Uppsala Health Summit

Uppsala Health Summit 2018, part 2: the overall experience


This is my second post in my blog series about this year’s version of Uppsala Health Summit. Here, I will write about the overall experience and the program. I’m doing this as one of the members of the program committee (see blog picture), so I may be a little biased  🙂

First, it is important to note here that Uppsala Health Summit is not a scientific conference, where researchers gather to discuss new findings related to healthcare and wellbeing, but rather an arena for discussions and debate among different stakeholders. The aim is e.g. to influence policy decisions related to societal challenges (often on a global scale). Even though it was possible to register for the summit on the summit’s home page, most of the participants were specially invited by the management or members of the program committee. This was very important for the overall atmosphere during the summit days – the participants knew they were there for a reason and that they had something very important to contribute with. Participants from many different disciplines were invited and decided to join us. There were many physicians present from all over the world (35 different counties were represented!), leaders of different healthcare organizations, researchers from different fields and countries, politicians and other policy makers, journalists from different parts of the world and also several patients who had undergone cancer treatments.

Personally, I found Uppsala Health Summit to be one of the most rewarding events I have participated in this far. This is much due to the interesting mix of delegates from different disciplines,  backgrounds and parts of the world, and also the program. Every part of the program was well thought out – even the coffee breaks, where delegates could join pre-booked “match making” sessions to discuss common interests or learn from each other. All plenary sessions and workshops really made you think, something that was evident from discussions among delegates during the summit.

There were four plenum sessions in total, each with a different theme. All these sessions were held in Rikssalen at Uppsala castle – what a place! The summit started off with a plenary session on visionary outlooks, which covered both challenges and opportunities related to cancer care on a global scale. The second plenary session focused on patients as the driving force to develop care and the third one focused on access to treatment and diagnostics. Both the second and third session included very interesting and thought-provoking discussions on differences between developed and developing countries. I will get back to this in a later blog post in this series. The fourth plenary session, which I unfortunately missed, focused on behavioral changes and lifestyle. These plenary sessions covered the area “Care for cancer” in a very good way and brought several important questions regarding e.g. equal access and patient empowerment to light.

Between the plenary session (one directly in the morning and one towards the end of the day), everyone engage in the workshops I mentioned in the first part on this blog series. There were four parallel workshops during both days, so the participants needed to chose a first and second hand choice when registering for the summit. All workshops had a duration of three hours distributed around a lunch break where everyone gathered at the castle’s top floor. The workshop I, and most of my colleagues from Uppsala University, participated in during the Thursday as well as our own workshop during the Friday, used also the lunch break for workshops discussions. I really enjoyed the workshops – everyone was eager to discuss and it was especially interesting to get input from many different perspectives! I will write more about these workshop in a later post. Both days ended (with exception from a short closing talk the last day) with quick presentations of the workshop results in plenum.

The summit also included a nice social program. Everything started already the day before the main events at Uppsala castle, at the Scandion Clinic. My colleague Åsa Cajander has written about the sightseeing at the radiation clinic in this blog post. The Friday also started off with a morning walk in the Uppsala University Botanical Gardens. Since I live in Stockholm, I couldn’t attend that walk 7:45 in the morning, but I know that it is quite an experience walking around there. After the first day, there was also a very nice conference dinner with a Swedish midsummer theme – the project manager for the summit, Madeleine Neil, had changed to traditional folk costume and the buffet included all the traditional midsummer ingredients. A group of folk musicians also played traditional songs before and during the dinner! The only little detail that did not add up was that midsummer wasn’t really last Thursday, it’s today!

I hereby wish you all a happy midsummer!



Uppsala Health Summit 2018, part 1

conference · Uppsala Health Summit

Uppsala Health Summit 2018, part 1: time to start discussing some tuff questions related to cancer care!


As I have written before on this blog, I have been involved in this year’s version of Uppsala Health Summit with the theme “Care for cancer”. See this blog post, for an introduction about the summit and the workshop that I co-organized together with my colleagues Åsa Cajander and Christiane Grünloh. Apart from co-organizing the workshop on the use of data for better cancer treatments, I was also a member of the program committee.

This is the first post in a blog series I will write during the summer, about the content of the summit and the preparatory work performed by the program committee. My intentions are mainly to raise awareness about the summit as such (a yearly event with different themes each year) and to highlight some important challenges, as well as opportunities, related to cancer care that were brought up during the summit.

This year’s program committee consisted of researchers (mostly professors) from a wide range of fields related to cancer care (e.g. oncology, physiotherapy, bio informatics, precision medicine and pharmacy) and all members also represented a workshop focused on their respective fields. You can read about all the workshops here. It was really interesting to take part in the meetings where the program was decided upon, even though many of the topics discussed were outside my main research field. I will get back to my experiences from the program committee work in a later post in this series.

One of the last things we did in the program committee was to agree on the content of a debate article that was published the same morning as the summit started. Our goal with the article, which was signed by all members of the program committee, was to highlight some tuff questions related to cancer care and to raise awareness about the summit and about some key challenges that we are facing. One of the important take-home messages is that we need to find international collaborations regarding e.g. bio banks, rare tumor diseases, data sharing, etc. – the challenges are global and should be tackled as such! I will get back to the global perspective on cancer care in later blog posts in this series. I’m really pleased with the article and I really recommend you to read it. You can find the link here (unfortunately, there is only a Swedish version).

I will be back soon with the second part in this blog series, where I reflect on the overall organization of this year’s Uppsala Health Summit, so stay tuned!  🙂