Cited by 210Interdisciplinary Research and CollaborationUsability and User Interface DesignMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Seven lessons for interdisciplinary research on interactive digital health interventions

Open access
Blandford, Ann, Gibbs, Jo, Newhouse, Nikki, Perski, Olga, Singh, Aneesha, Murray, Elizabeth·2018·DIGITAL HEALTH

Abstract

Research and development for interactive digital health interventions requires multi-disciplinary expertise in identifying user needs, and developing and evaluating each intervention. Two of the central areas of expertise required are Health (broadly defined) and Human–Computer Interaction. Although these share some research methods and values, they traditionally have deep differences that can catch people unawares, and make interdisciplinary collaborations challenging, resulting in sub-optimal project outcomes. The most widely discussed is the contrast between formative evaluation (emphasised in Human–Computer Interaction) and summative evaluation (emphasised in Health research). However, the differences extend well beyond this, from the nature of accepted evidence to the culture of reporting. In this paper, we present and discuss seven lessons that we have learned about the contrasting cultures, values, assumptions and practices of Health and Human–Computer Interaction. The lessons are structured according to a research lifecycle, from establishing the state of the art for a given digital intervention, moving through the various (iterative) stages of development, evaluation and deployment, through to reporting research results. Although our focus is on enabling people from different disciplinary backgrounds to work together with better mutual understanding, we also highlight ways in which future research in this interdisciplinary space could be better supported.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2055207618770325

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [24]Norman DA and Draper SW (eds). User centered system design: New perspectives on human–computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986, pp.1–2.
  2. [25]Rogers Y Sharp H Preece J Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
  3. [29]Greenhalgh T Annandale E Ashcroft R et al. An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research. Brit Med J 2016; 352: i563. 26865572

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blandford, A., Gibbs, J., Newhouse, N., Perski, O., Singh, A., & Murray, E.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Blandford, Ann
Venue
DIGITAL HEALTH
Published
2018-01
Volume
4
Pages
2055207618770325-2055207618770325
ISSN
2055-2076 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2800091779
Cited by
209
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 4
FWCI
27.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/G004560/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
interdisciplinary research, human-computer interaction, health research, formative assessment, summative assessment, research culture, research reporting, research lifecycle, user needs, interdisciplinary collaboration

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