Human-Centered Design Strategies for Device Selection in mHealth Programs: Development of a Novel Framework and Case Study.

design thinking device selection human-centric design patient centricity remote measurement technologies remote patient monitoring technology selection

Journal

JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 05 2020
Historique:
received: 02 09 2019
accepted: 24 01 2020
revised: 02 01 2020
entrez: 8 5 2020
pubmed: 8 5 2020
medline: 10 3 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Despite the increasing use of remote measurement technologies (RMT) such as wearables or biosensors in health care programs, challenges associated with selecting and implementing these technologies persist. Many health care programs that use RMT rely on commercially available, "off-the-shelf" devices to collect patient data. However, validation of these devices is sparse, the technology landscape is constantly changing, relative benefits between device options are often unclear, and research on patient and health care provider preferences is often lacking. To address these common challenges, we propose a novel device selection framework extrapolated from human-centered design principles, which are commonly used in de novo digital health product design. We then present a case study in which we used the framework to identify, test, select, and implement off-the-shelf devices for the Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse-Central Nervous System (RADAR-CNS) consortium, a research program using RMT to study central nervous system disease progression. The RADAR-CNS device selection framework describes a human-centered approach to device selection for mobile health programs. The framework guides study designers through stakeholder engagement, technology landscaping, rapid proof of concept testing, and creative problem solving to develop device selection criteria and a robust implementation strategy. It also describes a method for considering compromises when tensions between stakeholder needs occur. The framework successfully guided device selection for the RADAR-CNS study on relapse in multiple sclerosis. In the initial stage, we engaged a multidisciplinary team of patients, health care professionals, researchers, and technologists to identify our primary device-related goals. We desired regular home-based measurements of gait, balance, fatigue, heart rate, and sleep over the course of the study. However, devices and measurement methods had to be user friendly, secure, and able to produce high quality data. In the second stage, we iteratively refined our strategy and selected devices based on technological and regulatory constraints, user feedback, and research goals. At several points, we used this method to devise compromises that addressed conflicting stakeholder needs. We then implemented a feedback mechanism into the study to gather lessons about devices to improve future versions of the RADAR-CNS program. The RADAR device selection framework provides a structured yet flexible approach to device selection for health care programs and can be used to systematically approach complex decisions that require teams to consider patient experiences alongside scientific priorities and logistical, technical, or regulatory constraints.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Despite the increasing use of remote measurement technologies (RMT) such as wearables or biosensors in health care programs, challenges associated with selecting and implementing these technologies persist. Many health care programs that use RMT rely on commercially available, "off-the-shelf" devices to collect patient data. However, validation of these devices is sparse, the technology landscape is constantly changing, relative benefits between device options are often unclear, and research on patient and health care provider preferences is often lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To address these common challenges, we propose a novel device selection framework extrapolated from human-centered design principles, which are commonly used in de novo digital health product design. We then present a case study in which we used the framework to identify, test, select, and implement off-the-shelf devices for the Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse-Central Nervous System (RADAR-CNS) consortium, a research program using RMT to study central nervous system disease progression.
METHODS
The RADAR-CNS device selection framework describes a human-centered approach to device selection for mobile health programs. The framework guides study designers through stakeholder engagement, technology landscaping, rapid proof of concept testing, and creative problem solving to develop device selection criteria and a robust implementation strategy. It also describes a method for considering compromises when tensions between stakeholder needs occur.
RESULTS
The framework successfully guided device selection for the RADAR-CNS study on relapse in multiple sclerosis. In the initial stage, we engaged a multidisciplinary team of patients, health care professionals, researchers, and technologists to identify our primary device-related goals. We desired regular home-based measurements of gait, balance, fatigue, heart rate, and sleep over the course of the study. However, devices and measurement methods had to be user friendly, secure, and able to produce high quality data. In the second stage, we iteratively refined our strategy and selected devices based on technological and regulatory constraints, user feedback, and research goals. At several points, we used this method to devise compromises that addressed conflicting stakeholder needs. We then implemented a feedback mechanism into the study to gather lessons about devices to improve future versions of the RADAR-CNS program.
CONCLUSIONS
The RADAR device selection framework provides a structured yet flexible approach to device selection for health care programs and can be used to systematically approach complex decisions that require teams to consider patient experiences alongside scientific priorities and logistical, technical, or regulatory constraints.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32379055
pii: v8i5e16043
doi: 10.2196/16043
pmc: PMC7243134
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e16043

Subventions

Organisme : Alzheimer's Society
ID : 171
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0901434
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_17214
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

©Ashley Marie Polhemus, Jan Novák, Jose Ferrao, Sara Simblett, Marta Radaelli, Patrick Locatelli, Faith Matcham, Maximilian Kerz, Janice Weyer, Patrick Burke, Vincy Huang, Marissa Fallon Dockendorf, Gergely Temesi, Til Wykes, Giancarlo Comi, Inez Myin-Germeys, Amos Folarin, Richard Dobson, Nikolay V Manyakov, Vaibhav A Narayan, Matthew Hotopf. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 07.05.2020.

Références

Value Health. 2018 Jun;21(6):631-639
pubmed: 29909867
J Biomed Inform. 2016 Apr;60:243-51
pubmed: 26903153
BMC Psychiatry. 2019 Feb 18;19(1):72
pubmed: 30777041
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2018;252:176-181
pubmed: 30040702
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016 Mar;48(3):457-65
pubmed: 26484953
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Jan;97:195-209
pubmed: 27919378
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 30;7(1):e11325
pubmed: 30698535
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;241:97-102
pubmed: 28809190
Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2016 May-Jun;58(6):584-94
pubmed: 26923067
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Dec 16;18(12):e317
pubmed: 27986647
J Neurol. 2017 Feb;264(2):316-326
pubmed: 27896433
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2019 Jan;53(1):8-24
pubmed: 30373404
Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019 Jul;32:123-132
pubmed: 31125754
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Mar 16;5(3):e34
pubmed: 28302596
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jun 19;20(6):e220
pubmed: 29921563
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Apr;31(4):1097-1106
pubmed: 27465631
Epilepsy Behav. 2018 Aug;85:141-149
pubmed: 29940377
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Jan 17;6(1):e23
pubmed: 29343463
Implement Sci. 2016 Oct 26;11(1):146
pubmed: 27782832
Int J Med Inform. 2018 Apr;112:123-130
pubmed: 29500009
BMC Geriatr. 2013 May 06;13:43
pubmed: 23647949
Telemed J E Health. 2017 Jan;23(1):3-17
pubmed: 27116181
NPJ Digit Med. 2018 Jan 15;1:20172
pubmed: 31304346
Telemed J E Health. 2014 May;20(5):428-38
pubmed: 24731239
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 14;375(2):154-61
pubmed: 27410924
JMIR Res Protoc. 2013 Jun 24;2(1):e21
pubmed: 23796508
Digit Biomark. 2018 Apr 13;2(1):47-63
pubmed: 32095756
J Clin Sleep Med. 2015 Dec 15;11(12):1455-61
pubmed: 26156958
Prev Chronic Dis. 2018 Sep 27;15:E117
pubmed: 30264690
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 24;12(2):e0172535
pubmed: 28234953
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 05;13(4):e111
pubmed: 22155738
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jul 12;20(7):e10480
pubmed: 30001997
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015 Mar 27;12:42
pubmed: 25890168
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Jan;23(1):212-20
pubmed: 26078410
JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Feb 16;5(1):e25
pubmed: 26883135
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 May 1;176(5):702-3
pubmed: 26999758
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Sep 15;16(1):120
pubmed: 27630020
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017 Aug;49(8):1697-1703
pubmed: 28709155
Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Oct;15(5):307-10
pubmed: 17074863
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2017 Nov;14(11):891-900
pubmed: 28956457
Digit Biomark. 2018 Jan 31;2(1):11-30
pubmed: 29938250
JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018 Apr 24;5(1):e5
pubmed: 29691208
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Jan 1;2(1):104-106
pubmed: 27732703
NPJ Digit Med. 2018 Sep 13;1:46
pubmed: 31304326

Auteurs

Ashley Marie Polhemus (AM)

Merck Research Labs Information Technology, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Prague, Czech Republic.
Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Jan Novák (J)

Merck Research Labs Information Technology, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Prague, Czech Republic.
Department of Anthropology and Human Genetics, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

Jose Ferrao (J)

Merck Research Labs Information Technology, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Prague, Czech Republic.

Sara Simblett (S)

Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Marta Radaelli (M)

Neurology Services, San Raffaele Hospital Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Milan, Italy.

Patrick Locatelli (P)

Department of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy.

Faith Matcham (F)

Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
National Institute for Health Research, Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Maximilian Kerz (M)

Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Janice Weyer (J)

Patient Advisory Board, Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse Research Program, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Patrick Burke (P)

Patient Advisory Board, Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse Research Program, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Vincy Huang (V)

Merck Research Labs Information Technology, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Singapore, Singapore.

Marissa Fallon Dockendorf (MF)

Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Drug Metabolism, Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, United States.

Gergely Temesi (G)

Merck Research Labs Information Technology, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Prague, Czech Republic.

Til Wykes (T)

Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
National Institute for Health Research, Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Giancarlo Comi (G)

Neurology Services, San Raffaele Hospital Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Milan, Italy.

Inez Myin-Germeys (I)

Department for Neurosciences, Center for Contextual Psychiatry, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Amos Folarin (A)

Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
National Institute for Health Research, Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Richard Dobson (R)

Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Nikolay V Manyakov (NV)

Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium.

Vaibhav A Narayan (VA)

Research and Development Information Technology, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Titusville, NJ, United States.

Matthew Hotopf (M)

Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
National Institute for Health Research, Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH