Co-production in practice: how people with assisted living needs can help design and evolve technologies and services

Implementation Science

Trisha Greenhalgh⁴  Sue Hinder¹  Rob Procter²  Paul Sugarhood³  Joseph Wherton¹ 

[1] Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner St, London E1 2AB, Whitechapel, UK;Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK;East London NHS Foundation Trust, London E1 8DE, UK;Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, 2nd floor, New Radcliffe House, Walton St, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK

关键词: Telecare;    Telehealth;    Co-production;    Co-design;    Ethnography;    Assistive technology;   

Others  :  1219031
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-015-0271-8

 received in 2014-11-24, accepted in 2015-05-19,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The low uptake of telecare and telehealth services by older people may be explained by the limited involvement of users in the design. If the ambition of ‘care closer to home’ is to be realised, then industry, health and social care providers must evolve ways to work with older people to co-produce useful and useable solutions.

Method

We conducted 10 co-design workshops with users of telehealth and telecare, their carers, service providers and technology suppliers. Using vignettes developed from in-depth ethnographic case studies, we explored participants’ perspectives on the design features of technologies and services to enable and facilitate the co-production of new care solutions. Workshop discussions were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Results

Analysis revealed four main themes. First, there is a need to raise awareness and provide information to potential users of assisted living technologies (ALTs). Second, technologies must be highly customisable and adaptable to accommodate the multiple and changing needs of different users. Third, the service must align closely with the individual’s wider social support network. Finally, the service must support a high degree of information sharing and coordination.

Conclusions

The case vignettes within inclusive and democratic co-design workshops provided a powerful means for ALT users and their carers to contribute, along with other stakeholders, to technology and service design. The workshops identified a need to focus attention on supporting the social processes that facilitate the collective efforts of formal and informal care networks in ALT delivery and use.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Wherton et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cartwright M, Hirani SP, Rixon L, Beynon M, Doll H, Bower P et al.. Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole systems demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study); nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013; 346:f653.
• [2]Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernandex JL, Beecham J, Shashivadan P, Cartwright M et al.. Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (whole system demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study); nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013; 346:f1035.
• [3]Hendy J, Chrysanthaki T, Barlow J, Knapp M, Rogers A, Sanders C et al.. An organisational analysis of the implementation of telecare and telehealth: The whole systems demonstrator. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012; 12:403-24. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Eccles A. The complexities of technology-based care. Telecare as perceived by care practitioners. Issues in Social Science. 2013. doi:10.5296/iss.v1i1.4464.
• [5]Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernandeze J, Beecham J, Hirani S, Beynon M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of telecare for people with social care needs: the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. Age and Ageing. 2014. doi:10.1093/ageing/afu067.
• [6]Research and development work relating to assistive technology 2012–2013. Department of Health, London UK; 2013.
• [7]Greenhalgh T, Procter R, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Shaw S. The organising vision for telehealth and telecare: discourse analysis. BMJ Open. 2012; 2: Article ID e001574
• [8]Gaver W, Dunne A, Pacenti E. Design: cultural probes. Interact: New Visions Hum Comput Interact. 1999; 6:21-9.
• [9]Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Procter R, Rouncefield M, Dewsbury G, Hinder S et al.. Designing assisted living technologies ‘in the wild’: preliminary experiences with cultural probe methodology. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12:188. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Hinder S, Procter R, Stones R. What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. Soc Sci Med. 2013; 93:86-94.
• [11]Procter R, Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Rouncefield M, Hinder S. The day-to-day co-production of ageing in place. CSCW. 2014; 23:245-67.
• [12]ATHENE project website, www.atheneproject.org
• [13]Clemensen J, Larsen SB, Kyng M, Kirkevold M. Participatory design in health sciences: using cooperative experimental methods in developing health services and computer technology. Qual Health Res. 2007; 17:122-30.
• [14]Robert GB. Participatory action research – using experience-based co-design to improve the quality of healthcare services. Understanding and Using Health Experiences – improving patient care. Ziebland S, Coulter A, Calabrese JD, Locock L, editors. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2013.
• [15]Bate P, Robert G. Bringing user experience to healthcare improvement: the concepts, methods and practices of experience-based design. Radcliffe Publishing, Oxford; 2007.
• [16]Hartswood M, Procter R, Rouncefield M, Slack R, Voss A. Co-realisation: evolving IT artefacts by design. Resources, Co-Evolution and Artefacts. Ackerman M, Erickson T, Halverson C, Kellogg W, editors. Springer, Berlin; 2008.
• [17]Muller MJ, Druin A. Participatory design: the third space in HCI. In: Handbook of HCI. Jacko J, Sears A, editors. Eribaum, Mathway, NJ; 2010: p.1051-68.
• [18]Bodker S, Iversen OS. Staging a professional participatory design practice: moving PD beyond the initial fascination of user involvement. In: Proceedings of NordiCHI. 2002; New York:ACM:11–18
• [19]Barrett J, Kirk S. Running focus groups with elderly and disabled elderly participants. Appl Ergon. 2000; 31:621-9.
• [20]Lindsay S, Jackson D, Schofield G, Olivier P. Engaging older people using participatory design. In Proceedings of CHI. 2012, New York: ACM
• [21]Lines L, Hone KS. Eliciting user requirements with older adults – lessons from the design of an interactive domestic alarm. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2004; 3:141-8.
• [22]Rice M, Carmichael A. Factors facilitating or impeding older adults’ creative contributions in the collaborative design of a novel DTV-based application. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2011.
• [23]Beck E, Obrist M, Bernhaupt R, Tscheligi M. Instant card technique: how and why to apply in user-centered design. In: Proceedings of PDC’08. Association for Computing Machinery, New York; 2008: p.162-5.
• [24]Muller MJ, Kuhn S. Participatory design. Communications of the ACM 1993, 36:24-
• [25]Picking R, Robinet A, Grout V, McGinn J, Roy A, Ellis S et al.. Case study using a methodological approach to developing user interfaces for elderly and disabled people. Comput J. 2010; 53:842-59.
• [26]Suri JF, Marsh M. Scenario building as an ergonomics method in consumer product design. Appl Ergon. 2000; 31:151-7.
• [27]Muller MJ. Layered participatory analysis: new developments in the CARD technique. In: Proceedings of CHI. 2001. New York: ACM:90–97
• [28]Newell AF, Carmichael A, Morgan M, Dickinson A. The use of theatre in requirements gathering and usability studies. Interact Comput. 2006; 18:996-1011.
• [29]Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics in qualitative research. Sage, London; 1990.
• [30]Dourish P, Bellotti V. Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In: Proceedings of CSCW. 1992. New York: ACM:107–114
• [31]Spence P, Reddy M. Beyond Expertise Seeking: A field study of the informal knowledge practices of healthcare IT teams. In: Proceedings of CSCW’12. 2012;21:283–31
• [32]van den Heuvel E, Jowitt F, McIntyre A. Awareness, requirements and barriers to use of assistive technology designed to enable independence of people suffering from dementia. Technol Disabil. 2012; 24:139-48.
• [33]Sugarhood P, Wherton J, Hinder S, Procter R, Greenhalgh T. Technology as system innovation: application of the diffusion of innovation model to telecare. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013; 9:79-87.
• [34]National Catalogue, ADL Smartcare website, www.adlsmartcare.com
• [35]Burrow S, Brooks D. AT dementia: an information resource on assistive technologies that support the independence of people with dementia. Dementia. 2012; 11:553-7.
• [36]More Independent project website [http://www.moreindependent.co.uk]
• [37]Gibson G, Newton L, Prtichard G, Finch T, Brittain K, Robinson L. The provision of assistive technology products and services for people with dementia living in the United Kingdom. Dementia. 2014. doi:10.1177/1471301214532643
• [38]Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1991.
• [39]Brown JS, Duguid P. Organizational learning and communities of practice: toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organ Sci. 1991; 2:40-57.
• [40]Orr J. Talking about machines: an ethnography of a modern job. ILR Press, New York; 1996.
• [41]Ranmuthugala G, Plumb J, Cunningham F, Georgiou A, Westbrook J, Braithwaite J. How and why are communities of practice established in the healthcare sector? A systematic review of the literature. 2011; 11:273.
• [42]Cabitza F, Simone C. Renovated myths for the development of socially embedded technologies. arXiv preprint arXiv:1211.5577; 2012
• [43]Continua Alliance, www.continuaalliance.org
• [44]Covington H. Caring presence: delineation of a concept for holistic nursing. J Holist Nurs. 2003; 21:301.
• [45]Halldorsdottir S. The dynamics of the nurse–patient relationship: introduction of a synthesized theory from the patient’s perspective. Scand J Caring Sci. 2007; 22:643-52.
• [46]Hyde P, Harris C, Boaden R. Pro-social organisational behaviour of health workers. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2013; 24:3115-30.
• [47]Kolowitz B, Lauro GR, Venturella J, Georgiev Y, Barone M. Clinical social networking: a new revolution in provider communication and delivery of clinical information across providers of care? J Digit Imaging. 2014; 27:192-9.
• [48]Triantafyllidis AK, Koutkias VG, Chouvarda I, Maglaveras N. A pervasive health system integrating patient monitoring, status logging, and social sharing. IEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2013; 17:30-7.
• [49]Schmidt K, Bannon L. Taking CSCW seriously: supporting articulation work. CSCW. 1992; 1:7-40.
• [50]Bradner E. Social affordance of computer-mediated communication technology: understanding adoption. In: Proceedings of CHI EA. 2001. New York: ACM: 67–68
• [51]Reddy M, Dourish P, Pratt W. Coordinating heterogeneous work: information and representation in medical care. In: Proceedings of ECSCW. 2001. Netherlands: Springer:239–258
• [52]Clark HH. Using language. CUP, Cambridge; 1996.