As I have written in an earlier blog post, a paper on critical incidents and eHealth was submitted and later on accepted for presentation and publication at Interact 2017. Now our paper has been published in the conference proceedings and the presentation is coming up very soon! The full title of the short paper is “Using Critical Incidents in Workshops to Inform eHealth Design” and you can reach the paper here (page 364-373) if you (or a University you are affiliated with) have a Springer subscription. The authors are introduced in the blog post I link to above.
Christiane Grünloh, who is the lead author and the one who coordinated the entire writing process in a very good way, will present the paper at the conference tomorrow, September 27! The presentation concludes a session that focuses on Co-design studies, which starts at 1:30 PM in lecture hall 23. So, if you happen to be at the conference and want to attend her presentation about how one can utilize critical incidents to inform eHealth design you know where to go and when! 🙂
The workshop from NordiCHI 2016, on which the paper is based, was very special for me since I submitted my first research contribution from a patient’s perspective to that very workshop. That workshop contribution, entitled Making a case for easily accessible electronic health records – A patient perspective on lack of availability of health information in critical situations is not behind a paywall so if you are interested in how a patient contribution can look like you can find the paper directly by clicking on the title. It was a very interesting experience for me to use a critical scenario from my own life as a basis for discussion about how to inform eHealth design. The other papers, covering e.g. professionals’ perspectives and design were also very interesting and altogether the different contributions gave a good mix. You can find a collection of all workshop contributions here.
I usually write at least one blog post a week (usually two), but last week I didn’t post anything at all. The reason is a very bad inflammation in an eye. My contacts with healthcare, in different county councils, during last week (and the weekend before) proved to be very interesting most of all because county councils do not share patient record information. Interestingly enough, I had to use my patient accessible electronic health record to transfer important information between county councils! I will write a blog post about my experiences later this week, but since the paper I’m writing about here is to some extent about patient contributions to research I just want to point out that I now have several new ideas about real-life experience contributions based on my experiences from last week!
This day of the eHealth summer school contained two lectures and several hours of project work – this was the most project focused day so far. Once again it was a very rewarding day.
Kristina Höök, an interaction design professor from the department Media Technology and Interaction design where I worked earlier, started off the day by talking about soma design. In the picture above you can see her “Soma design manifesto” which will be discussed in her upcoming book on interaction design. Her talk was very inspiring and focused a lot on movement and how we can design with movement in mind. Several examples of design koncepts based on movement were brought up to discussion and fact is that I have tried some of them at KTH during an open house session a few years ago. One example was a design solution with a lamp which light intensity varied with your breathing – it really made it possible to experience breathing in a different way. Another example was a device you laid down, which generated heat based on pressure. The common theme of all examples was that the developed products give an awareness of the body and how it moves. The lecture also contained a practical exercise in which we should sit down relaxed and focus on the state of different body parts as well as the relation between them. This was a very interesting experience especially when it came to thinking about what mechanisms we use when we start and stop breathing. We can do this in soo many ways, but we hardly ever think about it. It became clear that we are different. Most of us are not really symmetrical, especially not if we experience some kind of pain, and we should design with this in mind. After this lecture I’m really curious about that book! 🙂
The other lecture was held by Elina Eriksson, who is also a former colleague, and from the same department as Kristina. Elina focused on ICT and sustainability and her talk was also very engaging. She started out with a very important and serious subject: what is the state of our planet and where are we going (my own interpretation, not a quote)? We definitely have a problem today – the emissions (especially carbon dioxide) are increasing which in turn causes all sorts of highly problematic chain reactions. We also have a problem with resources – e.g. just recently we passed the world overshoot day and it’s not even autumn yet! This is an important topic to really think hard about, but I will not delve deeper into it here. In the other part of her talk she focused more on sustainable development and gave several intereresting examples. It was especially pointed out that the whole life cycle is of importance – not just the usage of a product. We need to consider how and with which resources products are manufactured. The issues in the production or in waste handling might cost much more, in terms of effect on environment, than the actual usage. This is of course problematic when it comes to computers and phones which are often thrown out way before they actually stop functioning (sometimes due to incompatible new software). The lecture also contained group discussions about e.g. development goals which we were adressing and goals that were conflicting. Those who are interested in this topic (should be everyone!) may also be interested in this earlier blog post about a recent talk by Ulf Danielsson (professor from Uppsala University) about the fragile system we are all part of.
The rest of the day was devoted to project work, which started today. I will just mention the main steps here. We started with defining clear goals, after which we formulated important questions to answer. We also discussed what is needed for success as well as pitfalls that could lead to failure. The next step was a mapping activity, where we defined all stakeholders, data gathering and other key steps in the design cycle. The next main task was to choose a small part of the idea mapped out and generate several design ideas based on it (everyone in the project group produced 8 examples under time pressure). Each person than expanded on one of the ideas which was than shown to the entire group. The group than decided what parts from everyone’s solutions that should be a part of the final group design. The last project task today was that we started on a story board.
The day ended with a nice dinner with the entire group of participants and organizers.