Journal of Medical Systems

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 107–117 | Cite as

Web 2.0 Systems Supporting Childhood Chronic Disease Management: Design Guidelines Based on Information Behaviour and Social Learning Theories

  • Joakim Ekberg
  • Leni Ericson
  • Toomas Timpka
  • Henrik Eriksson
  • Sam Nordfeldt
  • Lena Hanberger
  • Johnny Ludvigsson
Original Paper

Abstract

Self-directed learning denotes that the individual is in command of what should be learned and why it is important. In this study, guidelines for the design of Web 2.0 systems for supporting diabetic adolescents’ every day learning needs are examined in light of theories about information behaviour and social learning. A Web 2.0 system was developed to support a community of practice and social learning structures were created to support building of relations between members on several levels in the community. The features of the system included access to participation in the culture of diabetes management practice, entry to information about the community and about what needs to be learned to be a full practitioner or respected member in the community, and free sharing of information, narratives and experience-based knowledge. After integration with the key elements derived from theories of information behaviour, a preliminary design guideline document was formulated.

Keywords

Diabetes Web 2.0 Design Communities of practice Informal learning Information behaviour 

References

  1. 1.
    Livingstone, D. W., Researching expanded notions of learning and work and underemployment: findings of the first Canadian survey of informal learning practices. Int. Rev. Educ. 46:491–514, 2000. doi:10.1023/A:1026522810394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McLean, R., Richards, B. H., and Wardman, J. I., The effect of Web 2.0 on the future of medical practice and education: darwikinian evolution or folksonomic revolution? Med. J. Aust. 187(3):174–177, 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lave, J., and Wenger, E., Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson, C. M., A survey of current research on online communities of practice. Internet High. Educ. 4:45–60, 2001. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00047-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P., Organizational learning and communities of practice. Organ. Sci. 2:40–57, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davenport, E., and Hall, H. Organ. Knowl. Communities Pract. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 36:171–227, 2002. ARISTGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hung, W. L. D., and Chen, D. T. V., Learning within the context of communities of practices: a re-conceptualization of tools, rules and roles of the activity system. Educ. Media Int. 39:247–255, 2002. doi:10.1080/09523980210166468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Putnam, R. D., Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster, London, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Covello, V. T., Peters, R. G., Wojtecki, J. G., and Hyde, R. C., Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. J. Urban Health. 78(2):382–391, 2001. doi:10.1093/jurban/78.2.382.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    American Library Association, American library association presidential committee on information literacy. Final report. American Library Association, Chicago, IL, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilson, T. D., Models in information behavior research. J. Doc. 55:249–270, 1999. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000007145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hjørland, B., Theory and metatheory of information science: a new interpretation. J. Doc. 54:606–621, 1998. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000007183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Timpka, T., Eriksson, H., Ludvigsson, J., Ekberg, J., Nordfeldt, S.,and Hanberger, L., Web 2.0 systems supporting childhood chronic disease management: a general architecture compliant with the WHA eHealth resolution Submitted for publication 2008.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johansson, M., and Timpka, T., Quality functions for requirements engineering in system development methods. Med. Inform. 21(2):133–145, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pilemalm, S., and Timpka, T., Third generation participatory design in health informatics—making user participation applicable to large-scale information system projects. J. Biomed. Inform. 41(2):327–339, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2007.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stake, R. E., The art of case study research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Savolainen, R., The sense-making theory: reviewing the interests of a user-centered approach to information seeking and use. Inf. Process. Manage. 29:13–28, 1993. doi:10.1016/0306-4573(93)90020-E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shannon, D., Kuhlthau’s Inf. Search Process Sch. Libr. Media Act. Mon. 19:19–23, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ford, N., and Murphy, G., The development and piloting of a training web site for health and safety enforcement officers. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 33:65–76, 2002. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spink, A., Wilson, T. D., Ford, N., and Ellis, D., Information seeking and mediated searching study. Part 3. Successive searching. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 53:716–727, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilson, T. D., Ford, N., Ellis, D., Foster, A., and Spink, A., Information seeking and mediated searching study. Part 2. Uncertainty and its correlates. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 53:704–715, 2002. doi:10.1002/asi.10082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barry, C. L., User-defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 45:149–159, 1994. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199404)45:3<149::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Byström, K., and Jarvelin, K., Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Inf. Process. Manage. 31:191–213, 1995. doi:10.1016/0306-4573(94)00041-Z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hjørland, B., and Albrechtsen, H., Toward a new horizon in information science: domain-analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 46:400–425, 1995. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199507)46:6<400::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-Y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barry, C. L., and Schamber, L., Users’ criteria for relevance evaluation: a cross-situational comparison. Inf. Process. Manage. 34:219–236, 1998. doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(97)00078-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., and Bateman, J., A study of mediated successive searching during information seeking. J. Inf. Sci. 25:477–487, 1999. doi:10.1177/016555159902500604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tang, R., and Solomon, P., Toward an understanding of the dynamics of relevance judgment: an analysis of one person’s search behavior. Inf. Process. Manage. 34:237–256, 1998. doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(97)00081-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yoon, K., and Nilan, M. S., Toward a reconceptualization of information seeking research: focus on the exchange of meaning. Inf. Process. Manage. 35:871–890, 1999. doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(99)00031-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vakkari, P., Task complexity, problem structure and information actions: integrating studies on information seeking and retrieval. Inf. Process. Manage. 35:819–837, 1999. doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(99)00028-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cairns, T., For the sake of informality. Adults Learn (England). 12:316–18, 2000.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Timpka, T. T., Proactive health computing. Artif. Intell. Med. 23:113–24, 2001. doi:10.1016/S0933-3657(01)00073-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brockett, R. G., and Hiemstra, R., Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on theory, research, and practice. Routledge series on theory and practice of adult education in North America. Routledge, London, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joakim Ekberg
    • 1
    • 2
  • Leni Ericson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Toomas Timpka
    • 1
    • 2
  • Henrik Eriksson
    • 2
  • Sam Nordfeldt
    • 1
    • 3
  • Lena Hanberger
    • 1
    • 3
  • Johnny Ludvigsson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Medical and Health SciencesLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  3. 3.Department of Clinical and Experimental MedicineLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations