Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 3–8 | Cite as

Observing health in everyday living: ODLs and thecare-between-the-care

Original Article

Abstract

Creating technological solutions that support health everywhere requires understanding the context of health and the vernacular of those engaged in it within that context. Within the formal healthcare system, institutional environments dominate and perspectives of biomedical science and the health professions govern the characterization of disease, illness and related terminology. In the everyday living context, the myriad viewpoints of the person prevail within informal, highly personal environments. The words used to characterize concern the manner in which symptoms are interpreted, and even the language employed arises from one’s lived experience. In this paper, based in our work with Project HealthDesign grantee teams, we advocate for an expanded notion of the contexts of health, extending beyond hospitals and clinics to homes, workplaces and communities. We also introduce a new vernacular, observations of daily living (ODLs), a novel type of patient-generated health data that Project HealthDesign participants revealed to us. ODLs reflect feelings, thoughts, behaviors, exposures and actions; they serve as cues to healthy action and indicators of personal health states. We conclude with recommendations to the PUC community to leverage in designing tools useful for the personal, everyday context experience of health.

Keywords

Patient-generated data ODLs Observations of daily living Informatics 

References

  1. 1.
    Nardi B (1996) Context & consciousness: activity theory and human computer interaction. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J (2005) Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q 457–502. doi:10.1111/j.1468-009.2005.00409.x
  3. 3.
    Casper GR, Brennan PF (2013) Project HealthDesign: a preliminary program-level report. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2013:192–199Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McGinnis JM, Foege WH (1993) Actual causes of death in the United States. JAMA 270(18):2207–2212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C et al (2010) Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005470.pub2 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ellis SE, Speroff T, Dittus RS, Brown A, Pichert JW, Elasy TA (2004) Diabetes patient education: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Patient Educ Couns 52(1):97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trief PM, Izquierdo R, Eimicke JP, Teresi JA, Goland R, Palmas W et al (2013) Adherence to diabetes self care for white, African-American and Hispanic American telemedicine participants: 5 year results from the IDEATel project. Ethn Health 18(1):83–96. doi:10.1080/13557858.2012.700915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moen A, Brennan PF (2005) Health@Home: the work of health information management in the household (HIMH)—implications for Consumer Health Informatics (CHI). JAMIA 12(6):648–656Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vitalari N, Venkatesh A, Gronhaug K (1985) Computing in the home: shifts in the time allocation patterns of households. Commun ACM 28:512–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gustafson DH, Dubenske LL, Namkoong K, Hawkins R, Chih MY, Atwood AK et al (2013) An eHealth system supporting palliative care for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized trial. Cancer 119(9):1744–1751. doi:10.1002/cncr.27939 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brennan PF, Moore SM, Bjornsdottir G, Jones J, Visovsky C, Rogers M (2001) HeartCare: an internet-based information and support system for patient home recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. J Adv Nurs 35(5):699–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gustafson DH, McTavish FM, Boberg E, Owens BH, Sherbeck C, Wise M et al (1999) Empowering patients using computer based health support systems. Qual Health Care 8(1):49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rantanen T, Portegijs E, Viljanen A, Eronen J (2012) Individual and environmental factors underlying life space of older people—study protocol and design of a cohort study on life-space mobility in old age (LISPE). BMC Public Health 12:1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Board on Human Systems Integration Health Care Comes Home: Human Factors. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/bohsi/health_care_comes_home/. Accessed 11 June 2014
  15. 15.
    Deering MJ (2013) Issue brief: patient generated health data and health IT. Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, Department of Health and Human Services. www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/pghd_brief_final122013.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2014
  16. 16.
    Backonja U, Casper G, Kim KK, Patton T, Ramly E, Brennan PF (2012) Observations of daily living: putting the “personal” in personal health record. Nurs Inform 2012:6 eCollectionGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW (1963) Study of illness in the aged. The Index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 185(12):914–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations