Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-05T07:34:51.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating a web-based guide for designing digital patient experiences: preliminary results of a user test with design students

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

Tingting Wang ,
Yun Wang ,
P. John Clarkson ,
Judith Rietjens  and
Marijke Melles
Tingting Wang*
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Yun Wang
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
P. John Clarkson
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Judith Rietjens
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Erasmus University Medical Center, The Netherlands
Marijke Melles
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
*
t.wang-8@tudelft.nl

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We created a web-based design guide to transfer our previous research findings to better support design education in the digital health design area for improving patient experience. To seek insights to iteratively improve the design guide, we conducted a workshop with 19 MSc students who specialized in design for healthcare. The guide was perceived as having the potential to improve their understanding of digital PEx improvements, but the content clarity and information presentation need to be improved.

Keywords

design guidelinesdigital healthpatient experienceprototypingworkshop
Type
Design for Healthcare
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 4: DESIGN 2024 , May 2024 , pp. 1687 - 1696
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2024.

References

AZUNGAH, T. 2018. Qualitative research: deductive and inductive approaches to data analysis. Qualitative research journal, 18, 383-400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BANDURA, A. 2006. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5, 307-337.Google Scholar
BECK, J. & STOLTERMAN, E. 2016. Examining the types of knowledge claims made in design research. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2, 199-214.Google Scholar
BONNARDEL, N. & SUMNER, T. 1996. Supporting evaluation in design. Acta Psychologica, 91, 221-244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BROOKE, J. 1996. Sus: a “quick and dirty'usability. Usability evaluation in industry, 189, 189-194.Google Scholar
CARAYON, P., WOOLDRIDGE, A., HOONAKKER, P., HUNDT, A. S. & KELLY, M. M. 2020. SEIPS 3.0: Human-centered design of the patient journey for patient safety. Applied ergonomics, 84, 103033.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CASH, P., DAALHUIZEN, J. & HAY, L. 2022. Design research notes. Design studies, 78, 101079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CASH, P., DAALHUIZEN, J. & HEKKERT, P. 2023. Evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of design methods: A systematic review and assessment framework. Design Studies, 88, 101204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COOK, D. A. 2007. Web-based learning: pros, cons and controversies. Clinical medicine, 7, 37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DANILUK, J. & KOERT, E. 2015. Fertility awareness online: the efficacy of a fertility education website in increasing knowledge and changing fertility beliefs. Human Reproduction, 30, 353-363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ETIKAN, I., MUSA, S. & ALKASSIM, A., S, R.. 2016. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5, 1-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FREY, D. & DYM, D., L, C.. 2006. Validation of design methods: lessons from medicine. Research in Engineering Design, 17, 45-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FU, K. K., YANG, M. C. & WOOD, K. L. 2016. Design principles: Literature review, analysis, and future directions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 138, 101103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GARRETT, J. J. 2022. The elements of user experience, マイナビ出版.Google Scholar
GAVER, W. What should we expect from research through design? Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2012. 937-946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GERO, J. S. & MILOVANOVIC, J. 2020. A framework for studying design thinking through measuring designers’ minds, bodies and brains. Design Science, 6, e19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GOPAL, G., SUTER-CRAZZOLARA, C., TOLDO, L. & EBERHARDT, W. 2019. Digital transformation in healthcare–architectures of present and future information technologies. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 57, 328-335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GROENEVELD, B., DEKKERS, T., BOON, B. & D'OLIVO, P. 2018. Challenges for design researchers in healthcare. Design for Health, 2, 305-326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HEALTHCARE DESIGN GROUP, C. E. D. C. 2020. Improving Improvement: A toolkit for Engineering Better Care [Online]. Available: https://www.iitoolkit.com/ [Accessed].Google Scholar
HOLDEN, G., BARKER, K., KUPPENS, S. & ROSENBERG, G. 2017. A Social Work Education Outcome Measure: The Evaluation Self-Efficacy Scale–II. SAGE open, 7, 2158244017728323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HÖÖK, K. & LÖWGREN, J. 2012. Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 19, 1-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IDEO. 2023. Designkit [Online]. Available: https://www.designkit.org/ [Accessed Nov 10 2023].Google Scholar
LÖWGREN, J. 2013. Annotated portfolios and other forms of intermediate-level knowledge. interactions, 20, 30-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MEDISIGN. 2023. Specialisation Medisign [Online]. Available: https://www.tudelft.nl/io/studeren/ide-masteropleidingen/specialisations/specialisation-medisign [Accessed Nov 9th 2023].Google Scholar
MELLES, M., ALBAYRAK, A. & GOOSSENS, R. 2021. Innovating health care: key characteristics of human-centered design. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 33, 37-44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OMAR, E. 2016. UX — A quick glance at The 5 Elements of User Experience (Part 2) [Online]. Available: https://medium.com/omarelgabrys-blog/ux-a-quick-glance-about-the-5-elements-of-user-experience-part-2-a0da8798cd52 [Accessed].Google Scholar
PIETER JAN, STAPPERS. 2023. Designing Design [Online]. Available: https://www.tudelft.nl/io/onderzoek/designing-design [Accessed Nov 8 2023].Google Scholar
REIMLINGER, B., LOHMEYER, Q., MORYSON, R. & MEBOLDT, M. 2019. A comparison of how novice and experienced design engineers benefit from design guidelines. Design Studies, 63, 204-223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STAPPERS, P. J. & GIACCARDI, E. 2017. Research through design. The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. The Interaction Design Foundation.Google Scholar
STAPPERS, P. J. & SANDERS, E. B. Generative tools for context mapping: tuning the tools. Design and emotion, 2003. Taylor & Francis New York, NY, 77-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TELENKO, C., SOSA, R. & WOOD, K. L. 2016. Changing conversations and perceptions: The research and practice of design science. Impact of Design Research on Industrial Practice: Tools, Technology, and Training, 281-309.Google Scholar
THE DESIGN COUNCIL. 2023. Framework for Innovation [Online]. Available: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/framework-for-innovation/ [Accessed Nov 10 2023].Google Scholar
WANG, T., GIUNTI, G., GOOSSENS, R. & MELLES, M. 2024. Timing, Indicators, and Approaches to Digital Patient Experience Evaluation: Umbrella Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, e46308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WANG, T., GIUNTI, G., MELLES, M. & GOOSSENS, R. Design-relevant factors affecting the patient experience in digital health: preliminary results of an umbrella systematic review. MEDINFO 2021: One World, One Health: Global Partnership for Digital Innovation, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics: Proceedings of the 18th World Congress on Medical and Health Informatics, 2022a. IOS Press.Google Scholar
WANG, T., GIUNTI, G., MELLES, M. & GOOSSENS, R. 2022b. Digital patient experience: umbrella systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research, 24, e37952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WANG, T., QIAN, S., ZHU, H., GOOSSENS, R., GIUNTI, G. & MELLES, M. Building Understanding of Experience Design in Digital Health: Preliminary Results Based on Semi-Structured Interviews. International Conference on Healthcare Systems Ergonomics and Patient Safety, 2022c. Springer, 317-331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WANG, T., WANG, Y., JOHN, C., JUDITH, R., GOOSSENS, R. & MELLES, M. 2023. The D&H Guide: Why Does Digital Patient Experiences (PEx) matter? [Online]. framer. Available: https://small-simplicity-694445.framer.app/ [Accessed 12 Feb 2024].Google Scholar
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION 2018. Classification of digital health interventions v1.0: a shared language to describe the uses of digital technology for health. World Health Organization.Google Scholar
YU, R. & GERO, J. S. 2016. An empirical basis for the use of design patterns by architects in parametric design. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 14, 289-302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YUN, W. 2023. Develop and evaluate a web-based design guide for improving the digital patient experience. Master of science master thesis, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
ZIELHUIS, M., VISSER, F. S., ANDRIESSEN, D. & STAPPERS, P. J. 2022a. Making design research relevant for design practice: What is in the way? Design Studies, 78, 101063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZIELHUIS, M., VISSER, F. S., ANDRIESSEN, D. & STAPPERS, P. J. 2022b. What makes design research more useful for design professionals? An exploration of the research-practice gap. Journal of Design Research, 20, 105-122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar