Advertisement

Intensity Thinking as a Shared Challenge in Consumer-Targeted eHealth

  • Marjo RissanenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11148)

Abstract

There is high production intensity in eHealth, and it is therefore recognized that models and methods are also needed when trying to develop customer-centered applications and systems. The purpose of translational medicine is to offer high-quality services, better health outcomes, and efficiency through innovations. The aim of this analysis is to clarify the importance of intensity thinking in the eHealth sector as a common design challenge of professionals and cooperators. Awareness of intensity thinking is one key area of consideration when reaching for translational design targets in eHealth, and it is thus also useful in the diagnostic and formative evaluation phases. Cooperation by different professionals is needed when creating common aims and missions in eHealth design. When aspects of care intensity are comprehended as fundamental to evaluation strategies, a more solid basis for successful innovation policy can be reached.

Keywords

Intensity thinking Quality Translational design eHealth evaluation 

References

  1. 1.
    Barello, S., Triberti, S., Graffigna, G., Libreri, C., Serino, S., Hibbard, J., Riva, G.: eHealthfor patient engagement: a systematic review. Front. Psychol. 6, 1–13 (2016) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Larson, R.: A path to better-quality mHealth apps. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 6(7), 10414 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.2196/10414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wehling, M.: Translational medicine science or wishful thinking? J. Transl. Med. 6(1), 1–3 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Narayan, K.V., Benjamin, E., Gregg, E.W., Norris, S.L., Engelgau, M.M.: Diabetes translation research: where are we and where do we want to be? Ann. Intern. Med. 140(11), 958–963 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Woolf, S.: The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA 299(2), 211–213 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sarkar, I.: Biomedical informatics and translational medicine. J. Transl. Med. 8, 22 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Polese, F., Capunzo, M.: The determinants of translational medicine success: a managerial contribution. Transl. Med. @ UniSa 6, 29 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rissanen, M.: Integrating translational design ideology for consumer-targeted, informative eHealth. Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol. 7(6), 260–265 (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hevner, A.: A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2), 87–92 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baskerville, R., Baiyere, A., Gregor, S., Hevner, A., Rossi, M.: Design science research contributions: finding a balance between artifact and theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 19(5), 358–376 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J.: Design science information system research. MIS Q. 26(1), 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Agarwal, R., Lucas Jr., H.C.: The information systems identity crisis: focusing on high-visibility and high-impact research. MIS Q. 29(3), 381–398 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Royen, P., Rees, C., Groenewegen, E.: Patient-centred interprofessional collaboration in primary care: Challenges for clinical, educational, and health services research. An EGPRN Keynote paper. Eur. J. Gen. Pract. 20, 327–332 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abaluck, J., Agha, L., Kabrhel, C., Raja, A., Venkatesh, A.: The determinants of productivity in medical testing: intensity and allocation of care. Am. Econ. Rev. 106(12), 3730–3764 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Silber, J.H., Kaestner, R., Even-Shoshan, O., Wang, Y., Bressler, L.J.: Aggressive treatment style and surgical outcomes. Health Serv. Res. 45(6p2), 1872–1892 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henke, R.M., et al.: Impact of health system affiliation on hospital resource use intensity and quality of care. Health Serv. Res. 53(1), 63–86 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taylor, N.: High-intensity acute hospital physiotherapy for patients with hip fracture may improve functional independence and can reduce hospital length of stay. J. Physiother. 63(1), 50 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hsu, B., Merom, D., Blyth, F., Naganathan, V., Handelsman, D., Cumming, R.: Temporal relationship between physical activity exercise intensity, and mortality in older men. Innov. Aging 1(suppl 1), 1052 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hylek, E.M., et al.: Effect of intensity of oral anticoagulation on stroke severity and mortality in atrial fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 349(11), 1019–1026 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Halfmann, D.: Recognizing medicalisation and demedicalisation: discourses, practices, and identities. Health 16(2), 186–207 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scambler, G., Britten, M.: System, lifeworld and doctor-patient interaction. In: Scambler, G. (ed.) Habermas, Critical Theory and Health, pp. 45–67. Routledge, London (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lowenberg, J., Davis, F.: Beyond medicalisation-demedicalisation: the case of holistic health. Sociol. Health Illn. 16(5), 579–599 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Broom, D.H., Woodward, R.V.: Medicalisation reconsidered: toward a collaborative approach to care. Sociol. Health Illn. 18(3), 357–378 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Burke, L., Ryan, A.: The complex relationship between cost and quality in US healthcare. Virtual Mentor Am. Med. Assoc. J. Ethics 2, 124–130 (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lerolle, N., Trinquart, L., Bornstain, C., Tadié, J.M., Imbert, A., Diehl, J.L., et al.: Increased intensity of treatment and decreased mortality in elderly patients in an intensive care unit over a decade. Crit. Care Med. 38(1), 59–64 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Friesner, D., Rosenman, R.: The relationship between service intensity and the quality of health care: an exploratory data analysis. Health Serv. Manag. Res. 18(1), 41–52 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Øvretveit, J.: Digital technologies supporting person-centered integrated care: a perspective. Int. J. Integr. Care 17(4), 1–4 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.3051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim, H., Xie, B.: Health literacy in the eHealth era: a systematic review of the literature. Patient Educ. Couns. 100(6), 1073–1082 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Makai, P., Perry, M., Robben, S.H., Schers, H.J., Heinen, M.M., Rikkert, M.G.O., Melis, R.F.: Evaluation of an eHealth intervention in chronic care for frail older people: why adherence is the first target. J. Med. Internet Res. 16(6), e156 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosson, M., Carroll, J.: Minimalist design for informal learning in community computing. In: Van Den Besselaar, P., De Michelis, G., Preece, J., Simone, C. (eds.) Communities and Technologies, pp. 75–94. Springer, Berlin (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3591-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rissanen, M.: “Machine beauty”—should it inspire ehealth designers? In: Zhang, Y., Yao, G., He, J., Wang, L., Smalheiser, N.R., Yin, X. (eds.) HIS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8423, pp. 1–11. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06269-3_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cook, V.E., Ellis, A.K., Hildebrand, K.J.: Mobile health applications in clinical practice: pearls, pitfalls, and key considerations. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. Aug. 117(2), 143–149 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I.: Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2(3), 192–222 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zwicker, M., Seitz, J., Wickramasinghe, N.: Identifying critical issues for developing successful e-Health solutions. In: Wickramasinghe, N., Al-Hakim, L., Gonzalez, C., Tan, J. (eds.) Lean Thinking for Healthcare. HDIA, pp. 207–224. Springer, New York (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8036-5_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Majchrzak, A., Markus, M.L., Wareham, J.: Designing for digital transformation: lessons for information systems research from the study of ICT and societal challenges. MIS Q. 40(2), 267–277 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Aidemark, J., Askenäs, L., Nygårdh, A., Strömberg, A.: User involvement in the co-design of self-care support systems for heart failure patients. Procedia Comput. Sci. 64, 118–124 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37(2), 337–355 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalto University School of ScienceEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations