Cited by 62Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationUsability and User Interface DesignSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

A scenario guideline for designing new teletreatments: a multidisciplinary approach

Huis in 't Veld, Rianne MHA, Widya, Ing A, Bults, Richard GA, Sandsjö, Leif, Hermens, Hermie J, Vollenbroek-Hutten, Miriam MR·2010·Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

Abstract

Lack of user acceptance of telemedicine services is an important barrier to deployment and stresses the need for involving users, i.e. medical professionals. However, the involvement of users in the service development process of telemedicine services is difficult because of (a) the knowledge gap between the expertise of medical and technical experts; (b) the language gap, i.e. the use of different terminologies between the medical and the technical professions; and (c) the methodological gap in applying requirement methods to multidisciplinary scientific matters. We have developed a guideline in which the medical and technical domains meet. The guideline can be used to develop a scenario from which requirements can be elicited. In a retrospective analysis of a myofeedback-based teletreatment service, the technically-oriented People-Activities-Context-Technology (PACT) framework and medically-oriented principles of evidence-based medicine were incorporated into a guideline. The guideline was developed to construct the content of a scenario which describes the new teletreatment service. This allows the different stakeholders to come together and develop the service. Our approach provides an arena for different stakeholders to take part in the early stages of the design process. This should increase the chance of user acceptance and thus adoption of the service being developed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1258/jtt.2010.006003

Cites

22 of 22 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huis in 't Veld, R. M., Widya, I. A., Bults, R. G., Sandsjö, L., Hermens, H. J., & Vollenbroek-Hutten, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede
  • University of Twente (NL)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • Roessingh Research and Development (NL)
Venue
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
Published
2010-08-26
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
302-307
ISSN
  • 1357-633X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1109
OpenAlex
W2102181316
Cited by
62
References
22
Citations by year
2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion)
  • Borås Academic Digital Archive (University of Borås) (submittedVersion)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
telemedicine, user acceptance, evidence-based medicine, myofeedback, stakeholder engagement, service design
MeSH terms
Europe, Feedback, Humans, Patient Care Team, Research Design, Telemedicine, Evidence-Based Medicine

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