Cited by 25Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsUsability and User Interface DesignElectronic Health Records Systems

Patient-centered Design Grounded in User and Clinical Realities: Towards Valid Digital Health

Cornet, Victor P., Daley, Carly, Bolchini, Davide, Toscos, Tammy, Mirro, Michael J., Holden, Richard J.·2019·Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care

Abstract

Valid design of patient-centered digital health or health information technology (IT) systems is based on a thorough and accurate understanding of both “user reality” and “clinical reality.” Type 1 Design Error (User-Reality Error) occurs when designers do not accommodate user characteristics, tasks, context of use, needs, or preferences. Type 2 Design Error (Clinical-Reality Error) occurs when designers do not accommodate the clinical reality, including biomedical knowledge, clinical workflows, and organizational requirements. Both types of errors can invalidate the design, leading to products being rejected by patient end-users or their healthcare delivery systems, product non-use or inappropriate use, and risk of harm. This paper describes our attempts to achieve valid health IT design and avoid the two design errors. We performed iterative, patient-centered design to prototype a mobile application, Power to the Patient (P2P), supporting heart failure self-care management. Our multidisciplinary team of human factors, cardiology, and design experts developed and iteratively refined requirements based on data collection, review, and testing with patient research participants, a patient advisory board, a clinical advisory board, and experts on the team. We describe our process and reflect on working with multiple stakeholders toward the goal of valid health IT design.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2327857919081023

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The UCD iterative process creates highly engaging and effective mHealth apps, requiring collaboration between end users, content experts, and user experience (UX) designers.

    “This iterative process creates highly engaging and effective mHealth apps, requiring collaboration between end users, content experts, and user experience (UX) designers [23,24].”
  • Many mHealth apps go unused because they fail to meet the needs of the patient, the clinician, or both.

    “However, many mHealth apps go unused because they fail to meet the needs of the patient, the clinician, or both [23].”
  • The proposed solution, endorsed by the World Health Organization and International Standards Organization, is to use UCD, bringing the end user and content experts together with UX designers to co-design an mHealth app.

    “The proposed solution, endorsed by the World Health Organization, [22] and International Standards Organization [42], is to use UCD, bringing the end user and content experts together with UX designers to co-design an mHealth app [23,43,44].”
  • The iterative UCD process begins with a needs assessment of both the end user and the content experts, including interviews and focus groups.

    “The iterative process begins with a needs assessment of both the end user and the content experts, including interviews and focus groups [19,23,44,47].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cornet, V. P., Daley, C., Bolchini, D., Toscos, T., Mirro, M. J., & Holden, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • Parkview Health (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Holden, Richard J.
Venue
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care
Published
2019-09
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
100-104
ISSN
  • 2327-8579 (ISSN-L)
  • 2327-8595
OpenAlex
W2974076400
Cited by
25
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3
FWCI
13.15
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care (publishedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
patient-centered design, health information technology design, design validity, mobile health apps, stakeholder collaboration, clinical workflow, patient advisory board, iterative design

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