In a few earlier blog posts I have mentioned that I’m one of the co-organizers of a workshop at Uppsala Health Summit. This summit is an annual large international meeting, where challenges in health and healthcare are brought up to discussion. The summit is highly multi-disciplinary in nature and usually involves researchers, patients, policy makers and business representatives to name a few categories. The main coordinator of the whole thing is Madeleine Neil.
Every year Uppsala Health Summit has different themes. Last year the theme was “Tackling Infectious Disease Threats – Prevent, detect, respond with a One Health approach”. You can read about last year’s version of the summit here. This year the theme, which is described here, is “Care for Cancer” and the workshop I’m involved in focuses on how we can use already existing data for better diagnoses and treatment of cancer.
The main organizer of our workshop is Åsa Cajander and Christiane Grünloh and I are the co-organizers. I think we have a very good plan for the workshop and later on this week we are submitting our contribution to the so called pre-conference report which will be published later on during the spring. The workshop is based on the critical incident and vision seminar techniques and the format will be tested in a workshop at Medical Informatics Europe in April, as I explained here. I will write more about the content of our workshop around the time when the pre-conference report is published.
The summit does not only contain workshops but also several plenum sessions. The content of these sessions, as well as the content of all workshops, is discussed in meetings about once a month. One representative from each workshop takes part in these monthly meetings. The planning around the summit is very well organized and I’m sure we will end up with a great program during this year’s summit at Uppsala Castle, June 14-15!
This year, I am organizing a special track at the Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS) annual conference, together with four colleagues from the DOME consortium:
- Isto Huvila, Professor at the Department of ALM, Uppsala University, Sweden. [Researchgate][Twitter]
- Rose-Mharie Åhlfeldt, Associate professor at the School of Informatics, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden. [Researchgate][Twitter]
- Hanife Rexhepi, Ph.D. student at the School of Informatics, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden. [Researchgate][Twitter]
- Bridget Kane, Associate professor in Information Systems, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden. [Researchgate][Twitter]
This is our special track introduction:
In an effort to help patients to become more informed, cope with their diagnosis, understand their disease process and increase their participation in healthcare decision making, there is an international movement towards providing patients with Patient Accessible Electronic Health Records (PAEHRs). Through these systems patients can often access medical notes, lab results, and track referrals. Probably two of the most widely known examples of PAEHR systems are OpenNotes in USA and myUHN Patient Portal in Canada. Other countries that use PAEHRs as components of their health delivery systems are Estonia, United Kingdom and several Nordic countries. The implementation of PAEHRs has apparent implications to both patients and healthcare professionals. When the Swedish PAEHR system Journalen was implemented in Uppsala County Council in 2012, healthcare professionals expressed strong concerns regarding e.g. that patients would begin to contact healthcare providers by telephone to ask about words and phrases they do not understand, or that patients would become anxious on learning about serious diagnoses when reading record notes. Physicians saw the medical records as their work tool and not a system for communication with patients. Similar opinions have been raised by healthcare professionals in other countries where similar systems have been implemented. There is relatively few studies on PAEHRs from the patient’s perspective, but the findings so far indicate positive attitudes towards the perceived usefulness of PAEHRs.
The organisers of this special track are all members of the Swedish national DOME (Development of Online Medical records and E-health services) consortium – a consortium focusing on research on PAEHRs from a multi-disciplinary perspective (human-computer interaction, health informatics, security and privacy, health information behaviour, to name a few). This special track aims at bringing researchers as well as patients together to discuss the latest research concerning the implementation and development of PAEHRs as well as research concerning experiences with and attitudes towards PAEHRs from the patient and professional perspectives. Since implementations often differ between countries and sometimes even within one country (e.g. as in Sweden), contributions comparing implementation of PAEHRs in different countries and contexts are especially welcome. Patient-focused researchers are encouraged to contribute with research papers highlighting patient perspective, including research on PAEHRs with a functionality that allows patients to add information to their medical records online. Reports of new initiatives related to PAEHRs are also of special interest.
See the 4th track on this page for more information about topics of interest and see the call for papers here. If you do (or have done) research related to patient accessible electronic health records you are more than welcome to submit a paper to our special track! Please note that the deadline for abstracts is 5/2 and the deadline for full papers is 19/2.
When I started blogging a little more than a year ago I was, of course, hoping that some people would start following the blog, that I would get quite a few readers and that there would be some sharing going on via Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn (other than my own 🙂 ). At least up until today I have quite a few readers each day and most of my posts are shared at least a few times. I currently also have 8 followers. I kind of expected these results, but what I certainly didn’t expect, when it comes to impact, started happening after the first week of a summer school I participated in last summer.
As several of you probably already know, I blogged about the summer school activities on a daily basis. You can see posts from the first week here. About three weeks after the summer school week in Dublin I got a comment on the above mentioned post (the first comment I ever got) where a representative from EIT Health wanted to know if they could use material from my blog to show other interested students what goes on during the summer schools! A few days after I answered that it was ok, the blog was e.g. linked at this page and in a news letter with general information about EIT Health activities.
A similar thing happened after I had visited the events EIT Health Alumni Connect and INNOVEIT 2017 in Budapest. As was the case for the summer school I wrote about both events directly after they took place. While I was still in Budapest one of the organizers of EIT Health Alumni Connect asked if he could post material from this blog post in order to show what we did during the event. Some new pictures were added and some minor edits in the text was done before this was posted on the EIT Health Alumni news page. Later on the same post was also used by EIT Alumni. I’m quite sure the use of these posts by EIT Health is one of the reasons why I was asked if I wanted to support the communications manager at EIT Health Alumni.
I have no idea if similar things will happen again, but I will definitely keep blogging about events I take part in and I’m really happy that EIT Health (Alumni) found my posts valuable enough to link to or reuse them! I also hope that I can support EIT Health Alumni in the future by e.g. reporting from other events. I really believe in that network and think that the work performed there is very important.
Since the conference Medical Informatics Europe (MIE) is held at the same time and place as Vitalis this year several of the researchers within the DOME consortium as well as in our HTO group at Uppsala University, have submitted quite a few papers to MIE and seminar proposals to Vitalis. In an earlier blog post I wrote about the two proposals I wrote to Vitalis, which both focused on different aspects of patients accessible electronic health records.
Aside from writing proposals to Vitalis, I also co-authored three MIE papers together with several DOME colleagues. One of those papers focuses on how patient access to medical records online is affecting the work environment for nurses and I wrote it together with Åsa Cajander. It’s actually based on an earlier master’s thesis which Åsa supervised. This paper was done quite a while ago.
The two other papers were based partly on results from the national patient survey study which I am currently leading (we have been at the analyses/reporting stage for quite a while). One of those papers focuses on delay periods (before patients can access information in their electronic health record) for signed and unsigned notes and how these differ between county councils. Maria Hägglund was the main author and Rose-Mharie Åhlfeldt and Isabella Scandurra were the other co-authors.
The second paper which was based on the patient survey focuses on psychiatry records online – an area which we will focus on much more in the near future. I will explain why in a later blog post about upcoming activities. I wrote this paper together with Gunilla Myreteg, who was the main author.
Here you can find an introduction of all researchers working with the national patients survey. I should not give any more details right now about specific analysis results or focus themes in the national survey study since that could interfere with later blind review processes. But I can tell you that the results covered in the very short MIE submissions (five pages is the limit!) are just small parts of the material we have regarding a few of the focus areas we are covering in that study. We are just getting started! 🙂
The deadline for MIE-submissions was last Sunday, November 12. January 20 the authors will get the verdicts (accept/reject). I can hardly wait!
Yesterday I blogged about a poster and a conference paper that Emma Frid and I developed for the SweCog conference in Uppsala. In this post I will focus on the second poster and paper that Eva-Lotta Sallnäs Pysander and I developed for the same conference.
The poster shown in the picture above, and even more so the paper, summarizes some of the main points made from my doctoral studies. My main focus during those years was collaboration in multimodal virtual environments with special emphasis on how haptic feedback can be used for communicative purposes. Mediated haptic communication has been studied for quite some time, but my specific contribution here has been to develop and test new functions for two-way haptic communication (see short descriptions of the functions on the poster) and also adapt some already developed ones in order to make them work better in a situation when a sighted person is collaborating with a severely visually impaired one in a collaborative virtual environment. There is a real potential in these kinds of functions when it comes to collaboration between sighted and visually impaired – the haptic feedback does not only enable establishment of a common ground about the interface but also effective two-way communication (see examples of results on the poster above). This is very important for the inclusion of visually impaired persons in group work. The example study is reported in much more depth in this article.
Even though the poster and paper include summaries of work already performed and reported, we are in this case even more explicit about the connection to other kinds of haptic communicative functions. This conclusion also takes the work to the next level:
We argue that for effective collaboration and communication to take place in virtual environments by means of haptic feedback the haptic functions need to be designed as to allow for reciprocal exchange of information. That is, both users need continuous feedback from each other during e.g. a guiding process or joint object handling.
The conference paper, on which the above poster is based, can be found here.
As I wrote in an earlier blog post I got two posters accepted to the SweCog 2017 conference in Uppsala, October 26-27. Unfortunately I got sick right before the conference so I couldn’t attend myself. The posters were, however, shown during the poster session.
The image above shows one of the posters – the one I created together with my KTH colleague Emma Frid. The study presented in the poster is based on the study I wrote about here, where Eva-Lotta Sallnäs Pysander and Roberto Bresin also participated. In the original study we found indications that gaze behaviour could be affected by haptic and audio feedback in a single user setting. In this new collaborative study presented in the poster, where we used a similar interface, we wanted to investigate if gaze behaviour can be affected by haptic feedback during collaborative object managing.
We have not performed the real experiments yet, but results from a pilot study with a few pairs of users (some worked in a non-haptic version of the interface and some in a haptic version) indicated that haptic feedback could have an effect on gaze behaviour (see e.g. the figures presented on the poster above). The results are not significant, but still interesting enough to make it worth running similar experiments with many more participants. A future step to take could also be to investigated how audio feedback (and/or combinations of haptic and audio feedback) affect gaze behaviour during collaborative task solving.
The poster above summarizes the work done. More information can be found in the published conference abstract which you can find here.
The deadline for submitting seminar proposals to Vitalis 2018 was last Friday, October 20. I almost missed that deadline, since I was so focused on the Medical Informatics Europe (MIE) 2018 conference which is held at the same time and place as Vitalis. I was, however, reminded a few hours before deadline and managed to submit two proposals (this is the first year I submit anything to Vitalis).
Vitalis is a great place to be at for everyone interested in eHealth and progress/innovation in healthcare in general. It is mainly a Swedish event and gather researchers, business leaders, politicians, healthcare professionals and several other visitor categories. Last year I participated in Vitalis for the first time and I really enjoyed it! My favorite part was of course the 1,5 hours session organized by the DOME consortium. I especially enjoyed the team work both during our event itself and during the planning. My best conference experience ever, by far! The focus of that session was the state of art regarding patient accessible electronic health records in Sweden. You can read my blog post about all parts of that session here.
Hopefully, at least one of my proposals will be accepted. Both of them focus on patient accessible electronic health records. One of my proposed sessions focuses on a recent study about how these online health records affect the work environment for nurses. The other proposal focuses on results from my large ongoing studies within the DOME consortium. There will be a lot of interesting material from those studies to discuss when we reach Vitalis! DOME usually draws a big audience at Vitalis, so hopefully at least the second proposal will be accepted. If it is, I hope that many DOME colleagues will join me so we can throw a similar kind of party as we did last time! 😉
Apart from submitting proposals to Vitalis I will also co-author three full papers, together with several DOME colleagues, to the MIE conference and probably submit a workshop proposal to MIE. I will write about those later on. If all goes well, there will be some busy days for the DOME researchers during the Vitalis/MIE conference period, April 24-26 2018!