Designing for Resilient Caregiving Coordination Journeys: Prioritizing Features Across Families and Phases
Abstract
When a child is hospitalized with a serious illness such as cancer, parents and other close family often take on new roles as caregivers. Previous qualitative studies indicate that caregiving coordination work changes systematically across illness and treatment phases, but less is known about individuals' technology preferences and how technology needs might change over time. In this study, we employed Q-methodology, a sorting technique for quantitatively analyzing subjective opinion. We interviewed 20 caregivers of children with cancer, who sorted 25 statements about potential design solutions. We describe four distinct caregiving coordination technology archetypes at diagnosis, and show how caregivers' preferences change over time, eventually converging on one set of priorities during extended hospitalization.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Patel et al [44] identified 4 caregiving coordination technology archetypes at diagnosis and showed how caregivers' preferences evolved over time.
“They identified 4 caregiving coordination technology archetypes at diagnosis and showed how caregivers’ preferences evolved over time.”
From User-Centered Design for Digital Patient-Navigation Tools in Oncology: Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [44]
Patel et al [44] interviewed 20 caregivers of children with cancer to explore potential design solutions.
“Patel et al [44] interviewed 20 caregivers of children with cancer to explore potential design solutions.”
From User-Centered Design for Digital Patient-Navigation Tools in Oncology: Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [44]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
User-Centered Design for Digital Patient-Navigation Tools in Oncology: Scoping Review
Kheirinejad, S., White, B. M., Kheirkhah Rahimabad, P., Zink, J. A., Hashtarkhani, S., Kumsa, F. A., Rashid, R., Chinthala, L., Brett, C. L., Davis, R. L., et al. (2026) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/87686
“Patel et al [44] interviewed 20 caregivers of children with cancer to explore potential design solutions.”
- Authors
- Patel, S., Nikkhah, S., Nadkarni, S., Suryawanshi, P., Sureddi, R., Bhoyar, M., Kulkarni, P., Jogadia, D. D., Shimala, S., Harishchandrakar, A. V., Sanaeipoor, S., Mueller, E. L., & Miller, A. D.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Companion Publication of the 2024 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-11-11
- Pages
- 525-532
- OpenAlex
- W4404315137
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 1.29
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (20474032)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Q Methodology Applications
- Keywords
- childhood cancer, family caregivers, technology preferences, design priorities, disease stage, hospitalization, serious illness, Q methodology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review