Advertisement

A Design Perspective on Future Healthcare Services for the Home Environment

  • Geke D. S. LuddenEmail author
  • Anna Vallgårda
Chapter

Abstract

A recent paradigm shift in healthcare merges the traditional domains of cure and care in healthcare services with prevention and provides all of us with more participation as well as more responsibility in our own healthcare. This shift creates not only a need for personalization of services but also a design challenge with respect to inclusion and acceptance. Healthcare moves into people’s homes and merges medical devices with services hereby enlarging the current contrast between medical device cleanliness and the often cozier and textile-rich home environment. These developments bring important design challenges that will be addressed in this chapter, thereby raising important questions for the implementation of a new design perspective on healthcare.

References

  1. 3HC. (2018). Telehealth, health buddy home monitoring system. Retrieved April 6, 2018, from http://www.3hc.org/services/home-health/telehealth
  2. Anderson, R. M., & Funnel, M. M. (2005). Patient empowerment: Reflections on the challenge of fostering the adoption of a new paradigm. Patient Education and Counseling, 57(2), 153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, K. (2004). Cyber medicine and the moral integrity of the physician-patient relationship. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(2), 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bitterman, N. (2011). Design of medical devices: A home perspective. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 22(1), 39–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chamberlain, P., & Craig, C. (2016). HOSPITAble: Domestication of healthcare. In P. Desmet, S. Fokkinga, G. Ludden, N. Cila & H. Van Zuthem (Eds.), Celebration & contemplation: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Design and Emotion (pp. 553–557), Amsterdam, 27–30 September 2016. Amsterdam: Design & Emotion Society.Google Scholar
  6. Chamberlain, P., & Craig, C. (2017). HOSPITAble: Critical design and the domestication of healthcare. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Biannual Research Through Design Conference. 22–24 March, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 114–130.Google Scholar
  7. Chan, M., Campo, R., Estève, D., & Fourniols, J. Y. (2009). Smart homes: Current features and future perspectives. Maturitas, 64(2), 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crutzen, R., van ’t Riet, J., & Short, C. E. (2016). Enjoyment: A conceptual exploration and overview of experimental evidence in the context of games for health. Games for Health Journal, 5(1), 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daam, H. (2014). Strategic creativity series #06: Moving stories. Eindhoven: Design Academy. Retrieved April 3, 2018, from https://issuu.com/designacademy/docs/_06_movingstories_issuu
  10. Demiris, G., & Hensel, B. K. (2008). Technologies for an aging society: A systematic review of “smart home” applications. Yearbook Medical Informatics, 33–40.Google Scholar
  11. Diabetes.co.uk. (2010). Retrieved November, 2018, from https://www.diabetes.co.uk/promotions/bayer-didget.html
  12. Hiremath, S., Yang, G., & Mankodiya, K. (2014). Wearable internet of things: Concept, architectural components and promises for person-centered healthcare. In 4th International Conference on Wireless Mobile Communication and Healthcare: Transforming Healthcare Through Innovations in Mobile and Wireless Technologies (MOBIHEALTH) (pp. 304–307), IEEE, 3–5 November, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  13. Institute of the Future. (2009). HC2020 signals & forecast map. Accessed April 2018 through Retrieved April 3, 2018, from http://www.iftf.org/uploads/media/HC2020%20map_reader%20spread.pdf
  14. Joshi, S. G., & Bråthen, H. (2016). The role of materials in design of familiar and contextual assistive technologies. In: Proceedings of International Conferences Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction (pp. 101–109), 1–4 July. Madeira, Portugal: IADIS Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kelders, S. M. (2015). Involvement as a working mechanism for persuasive technology. In T. MacTavish & S. Basapur (Eds.), Persuasive technology: Persuasive 2015. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 9072, pp. 3–14). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ludden, G. D. S., van Rompay, T. J. L., Kelders, S. M., & van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. W. C. (2015). How to increase reach and adherence of web-based interventions: A design research viewpoint. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(7), e172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McQuaid, M. (2005). Extreme textiles: Designing for high performance. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  18. Moore, J. (2000). Placing home in context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(3), 207–2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oudshoorn, N. (2011). How places matter: Telecare technologies and the changing spatial dimensions of healthcare. Social Studies of Science, 42(1), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pailes-Friedman, R. (2016). Smart textiles for designers: Inventing the future of fabrics. London: Laurence King.Google Scholar
  21. Philips Group Communications. (2014). Philips expands Benelux home healthcare offering with innovative home medication dispensing service. Philips (Ed.). Retrieved April 6, 2018, from https://www.philips.com/a-w/about/news/archive/standard/news/press/2014/20140220-Philips-expands-Benelux-home-healthcare-offering-with-innovative-home-medication-dispensing-service.html
  22. Pols, J., & Moser, I. (2009). Cold technologies versus warm care? On affective and social relations with and through care technologies. ALTER: European Journal of Disability Research, 3(2), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Svanæs, D. (2013). Interaction design for and with the lived body: Some implications of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 20(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vallgårda, A., Winther, M., Mørch, N., & Vizer, E. E. (2015). Temporal form in interaction design. International Journal of Design, 9(3), 1–15.Google Scholar
  25. Van Rees, H., Mader, A., Smits, M., Ludden, G., & Lamontagne, V. (2018). Textile waste and haptic feedback for wearable robotics. In Proceedings of Design Research Society 2018, June 25–28, DRS, Limerick, Ireland (in print).Google Scholar
  26. Van Velsen, L., Wildevuur, S., Flierman, I., Van Schooten, B., Tabak, M., & Hermens, H. (2016). Trust in telemedicine portals for rehabilitation care: An exploratory focus group study with patients and healthcare professionals. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 16(11), 1–12.Google Scholar
  27. Verbeek, P. P. (2008). Cyborg intentionality: Rethinking the phenomenology of human-technology relations. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilde, D., & Andersen, K. (2010). Doing things backwards the OWL project interviews. In Proceedings of TEI2010 Tangible & Embedded Interaction Conference, ACM SIGCHI, January 25–27, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  29. Wilde, D., Vallgårda, A., & Tomico, O. (2017). Embodied design ideation methods: Analysing the power of estrangement. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI2017 (pp. 5158–5170), May 6–11. Denver, CO: ACM.Google Scholar
  30. Wildevuur, S. (2017). Could health learn from design? Design for Health, 1(1), 59–64.  https://doi.org/10.1080/24735132.2017.1295707 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNIVERSITEIT TWENTEEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations