A few weeks ago, Pernilla Josefsson and I got an abstract for a poster accepted to an annual pedagogical conference at Uppsala University (TUK 2018) and today I presented that poster at the conference. The poster is based on work performed within the 3hp pedagogical course which I’m currently taking at the university. I introduced the course last autumn in this blog post.
The basic idea with the project is to study how a Facebook group affects student and teacher roles as well as the communication both between students and between students and teachers. As in several earlier courses I have been responsible for, I invited all teachers and students to join a Facebook group in the beginning of the course. The only difference this time is that I conduct research on the communication. The poster, shown in the picture above, presents some basic facts about the setup, which methods were used and also some preliminary results. A lot more can be done in terms of analysis, so this is certainly not the last research contribution that will come out of this study!
Here is the abstract we submitted in order to get the poster accepted:
A Facebook group was used as a complementary communication channel during a course in human-computer interaction, autumn 2017. All 63 students and three involved teachers were invited to the group right before the course started. This was done within the scope of a pedagogical study aiming at investigating how a teacher administrated Facebook group affects student and teacher roles and communication between students as well as between students and teachers. The study included a pre-survey on social media literacy, collection of posts and user reactions, and a post-survey eliciting student attitudes towards Facebook as well as opinions about the use of Facebook during the course. Posts and comments were analyzed using a content analysis approach. 48/63 students chose to join the group and of these 40 were active participants. Most student posts and comments concerned the ongoing project work and logistics.
I really enjoyed attending the very well arranged conference, and in the next blog post (or maybe two posts), I will discuss some of the points brought up in the keynotes, paper sessions and plenary talks. Both some of my colleagues in the HTO group at Uppsala University and I will also write about the conference – and especially our own contributions – on our HTO blog in the near future. So, if you want to know more about what we are involved in regarding pedagogical development (or other research) you should also check out that blog.
As I wrote in this blog post, Åsa Cajander, Christiane Grünloh and I are organizing a workshop at Uppsala Health Summit. The workshop focuses on the use of data for diagnosis and treatment of cancer. More information about this year’s theme, “care for cancer” has been posted on the summit’s web page now. According to the current plan, our workshop will be held during three hours (with a pause for lunch) on Friday 15 June.
If you want to read a very concise summary of our workshop, you can find one here. If you want to know more about some of the challenges, related to use of data in healthcare, that will be brought up to discussion in the workshop you can read about an interview with Åsa Cajander (main organizer) here! In the interview, she also describes how we will make use of critical incidents in the workshop.
I’m really looking forward to continue working with this and I’m positive the workshop will yield many interesting and important results! I will write a new post about the summit when there is a link to the pre-conference report.
In the last couple of posts I have written about papers that will be presented by DOME researchers at Medical Informatics Europe 2018 as well as a workshop we will host during the same conference. These conference contributions are presented here. Aside from these, seminar proposals were also submitted to Vitalis, which runs in parallel at the same venue. As it turns out, DOME will once again get the opportunity to host a major session at Vitalis!
In several earlier posts, I have written about last year’s DOME session at Vitalis, which according to everyone involved was a great success. Research on patient accessible electronic health records was discussed from many different angles, and the audience was also involved through a Mentimeter solution. A summary of that entire session, with some representative images from the different talks, can be found here.
I’m really looking forward to once again join colleagues in the DOME consortium, as well as representatives from Inera, to present the latest research on patient accessible electronic health records. We will, among other things, discuss regulatory frameworks, the children’s access perspective, international perspectives, findings from the large national patient survey as well as preliminary findings from the large interview/observation/survey study with physicians and nurses I’m currently leading at the Oncology department at Uppsala University Hospital (results from this study have never been presented before!). Once again, we will also use Mentimeter for audience involvement as well as different presentation methods like e.g. role plays.
You can find the specific plans (with links to more information about the different talks) for our two-hour DOME session here (mostly in Swedish). If you are at Vitalis on Wednesday, April 25, I hope you will join us!
My last two blog posts were about a paper and another paper that were accepted for presentation at Medical Informatics Europe (MIE) in April. Now, the time has come to introduce the workshop that was accepted to the same conference. I am the main organizer of the workshop, which we gave the title “Identifying the Need of Self-reported Data and Self-measurements for Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer”. The co-organizers are Åsa Cajander, Christiane Grünloh and Isabella Scandurra.
In an earlier blog post, I wrote about a workshop that Åsa Cajander (main organizer), Christiane Grünloh and I are organizing at Uppsala Health Summit in June. The workshop at MIE is similar, but this workshop focuses entirely on patient data and not use of data in general. There are numerous data sources that can be used as basis for diagnoses and treatment of cancer today, but self-tracking data from patients is usually not on that list of sources. Self-tracking data can say a lot about e.g. daily progress and response to treatment so there is a great unutilized potential there. In this workshop, we will discuss current possibilities and challenges when it comes to utilizing this data for diagnosis and treatment. The discussion will bring in different perspectives, like e.g. technology, ethics, laws and data accessibility.
The workshop will build a lot on the critical incidents technique. The method, as well as an example of use, is explained in this and this blog posts about a workshop held at NordiCHI in 2016. Our MIE workshop will start off with discussions about some real-life critical incidents related to lack of (or utilization of) patient data. The discussions will lead to the creation of a few scenarios, related to key stakeholders (like patients and physicians) which will illustrate what is needed to make better use of already existing data as well as new kinds of data (e.g. self-tracking) for diagnosis and treatment of cancer.
This is the workshop abstract:
Today, numerous data sources are available to healthcare professionals for diagnosing and treating cancer, but there are also data captured by patients, e.g. related to daily progress, which are not readily accessible to healthcare. In this workshop, we will use the critical incidents technique to inspire participants to elaborate on the need of using new data collections and measurements, for example from continuous self-tracking, as well as utilizing already existing data in new ways for diagnoses and treatment of cancer. Real-life critical incidents related to patients, healthcare professionals, and researchers, will be discussed and used as a basis for scenarios that will illustrate future visions of how self-reported data and self-measurements should be used in combination with existing data sources.
You are very welcome to join our workshop at MIE! I will write a new blog post when I have the specific times when the workshop will be held and when the two papers will be presented.
My last blog post was about a forthcoming presentation about the effect of patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs), at Medical Informatics Europe. This post is about the second full paper that was accepted to the same conference. The main author of that paper is Maria Hägglund and I’m a co-author together with Rose-Mharie Åhlfeldt and Isabella Scandurra. The title of this paper is “Timing it right – patients’ online access to their record notes in Sweden”.
This second paper also focuses on patient accessible electronic health records, but from a different angle: waiting times before new information (e.g. notes from a doctor’s visit or lab results) is accessible through Journalen. There are numerous differences between the implementation of Journalen in different county councils. For example, different types of information is accessible in different county councils. When Journalen was introduced in Region Uppsala in 2012 the patients could get access to almost all types of information (visit notes, diagnoses, lab results, log list, referral tracking, vaccinations, care contact history,…) except radiology images, pathology results and psychiatry records. This is still the case for those who have received care in that region. Those who have received care in Region Skåne (the second county countil in Sweden to implement Journalen), however, can only see visit notes, diagnoses and care contact history.
Two other big differences can be seen when it comes to when information is accessible in Journalen and if patients can access unsigned information (results and notes which the physician has not yet validated). Currently, the applied rules differ between county councils in Sweden:
- Immediate access to signed notes (17/20) county councils)
- Immediate access to unsigned notes (7/20 county councils) – in this case the patient decides if s(he) wants direct access to unsigned notes or not.
- No access to unsigned notes (1/20 county councils)
- Access to signed notes after a waiting period of 14 days (3/20 county councils)
- Access to unsigned notes after 14 days (12/20 county councils)
In the paper we show which rules are applied by the different county councils and discuss the rules and their implications more thoroughly. We also discuss the different implementations in relation to some of the results from the national patient survey in Sweden regarding general attitudes towards Journalen and expectations on waiting times.
Here is the abstract:
In Sweden, and internationally, there is an ongoing debate about the effects of national implementations of Patient Accessible Electronic Health Records (PAEHRs). The purpose of this paper was to describe the current situation in Sweden and compare this with the expectations on reasonable waiting time for information access of users of the Swedish PAEHR. Data were collected from publicly available resources regarding current implementation in the 21 county councils, contrasted with patient experiences, gathered from a national online survey. The results indicate that patients have high expectations on immediate access to information, while this varies greatly in implementation across Sweden.
I haven’t been blogging for a while due to, among other things, the research grant and job applications I wrote about here. Some things have been submitted now, and I will come back to those shortly. Now, I want to concentrate on accepted papers, workshops and presentations to Medical Informatics Europe (MIE) and Vitalis in Gothenburg in the next couple of posts. The reason is that I got several confirmation letters about final acceptance last Friday. I have already mentioned the conditionally accepted papers here. We submitted revised versions of all of them accept for the short communication on psychiatry records – we decided to go for a journal article instead later on during the spring.
The first paper that was submitted to this year’s MIE conference was about the effect of patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) on the nurses’ work environment. It reports on a rather small interview study at a clinic and was originally performed as a master’s thesis project by the Uppsala University students Sara Englund and Anastasia Hansman. Åsa Cajander, who was also the supervisor of the students, is the main author of the conference paper and I am one of the co-authors since I also helped in writing the paper. The title of this paper is “Medical Records Online for Patients and Effects on the Work Environment of Nurses”.
One of the reasons why the study reported in the paper focuses on nurses is that most studies about the effect of PAEHRs focus on physicians and their work environment or their interaction with patients (See for example the newly published paper ““Why Do They Need to Check Me?” Patient Participation Through eHealth and the Doctor-Patient Relationship: Qualitative Study” by my some of my colleagues in the DOME consortium). This is also one of the reasons why we include nurses in the large interview/observation/survey study which I’m leading at the oncology department at Uppsala University Hospital. In the MIE paper, results regarding the following themes are discussed: Altered contacts, Increases workload, Creates uncertainty and Requires new knowledge.
Here is the abstract:
In 2012 Patients Accessible Electronic Health Records (PAEHR) was introduced in Region Uppsala, Sweden. When PAEHR was introduced heath care professionals were very concerned especially in relation to potential negative effects on their work environment. However, few studies exist that investigate in what way work environments have been affected, and no studies have focused on the nurses’ working in primary care. Hence, the purpose of this study was to fill this gap through seven interviews with primary care nurses that were transcribed and thematically analysed. The study shows that the nurses’ experiences an altered contact as patients accessing PAEHR came prepared to meetings with more informed questions. They also experienced that the service had increased their work load and that it creates uncertainty for nurses who do not know when to inform the patient about test results etc. Finally, some implications are discussed in relation to the patients’ role in shared decision making.
The schedule for the conference is not finalized yet, so I cannot give any information about when the paper is going to be presented. The only thing I know is that it will be one of the days April 24-26. I will write a new post about the specific presentation times for our accepted papers and the workshop as soon as they have been decided.
A few weeks ago I wrote a blog post about the spring of opportunities, which basically contained lists of possible research grant and job opportunities that were open or should open during the spring term. Just before lunch today, I submitted the first of my planned project proposals! This one went to Forte and their grants for junior researchers.
The proposed project relates to work that I performed while I was still working at KTH as a Ph.D. student and the content was also inspired by the application that I sent to VR last year (see this blog post). The project is based on the fact that today’s assistive technologies that visually impaired pupils use in the classroom are not really designed for collaborative situations – the technology could sometimes be a hindrance when doing group work with sighted peers. Our hope is that the planned activities will really shed light on the problems this is causing and show how one can make use of modern technology, based on haptic and audio feedback, to find ways ahead. I have already done a few studies in this area which you e.g. can read about in this article (note that this is a pre-print version). I will write more about this when I get an answer from Forte about the draft later on in April.
My co-applicant is Eva-Lotta Sallnäs Pysander from KTH, who was also my main supervisor there. If we get the grant, we will hopefully be able to add a Ph.D. student to the research team as well.
I must say that it’s nice to have this proposal submitted. I really believe in the ideas in it and I also think that the project could make a real difference. Since I’m generally very interested in multimodal interaction and learning, this is also one of the areas I really want to focus on in my research in the future. The other area is eHealth and as I have written before there are quite a few funding opportunities in that area as well during this spring. But right now I’m just enjoying that I have one application out there, just as the razorbill in the image above probably enjoys sitting on a cliff looking out over the ocean…