Designing eHealth that Matters via a Multidisciplinary Requirements Development Approach

Human-centered design (HCD) is widely regarded as the best design approach for creating eHealth innovations that align with end users’ needs, wishes, and context and has the potential to impact health care. However, critical reflections on applying HCD within the context of eHealth are lacking. Applying a critical eye to the use of HCD approaches within eHealth, we present and discuss 9 limitations that the current practices of HCD in eHealth innovation often carry. The limitations identified range from limited reach and bias to narrow contextual and temporal focus. Design teams should carefully consider if, how, and when they should involve end users and other stakeholders in the design process and how they can combine their insights with existing knowledge and design skills. Finally, we discuss how a more critical perspective on using HCD in eHealth innovation can move the field forward and offer 3 directions of inspiration to improve our design practices: value-sensitive design, citizen science, and more-than-human design. Although value-sensitive design approaches offer a solution to some of the biased or limited views of traditional HCD approaches, combining a citizen science approach with design inspiration and imagining new futures could widen our view on eHealth innovation. Finally, a more-than-human design approach will allow eHealth solutions to care for both people and the environment. These directions can be seen as starting points that invite and support the field of eHealth innovation to do better and to try and develop more inclusive, fair, and valuable eHealth innovations that will have an impact on health and care.

Smartphones and tablet computers have become an integral part of our lives. One of their key features is the possibility of installing third-party apps. These apps can be very helpful for improving health and healthcare. However, medical professionals and citizens are currently being overloaded with health apps. Consequently, they will have difficulty with finding the right app, and information and features are fragmented over too many apps, thereby limiting their usefulness.

This literature review focuses on user-centered evaluation (UCE) studies of adaptive and adaptable systems. Usability, perceived usefulness and appropriateness of adaptation are the three most commonly assessed variables. Questionnaires appeared to be the most popular method, followed by interviews and data log analysis. The quality of most questionnaires was questionable, and the reporting of interviews and think-aloud protocols was found to be shallow. Furthermore, data logs need triangulation in order to be useful. The reports encountered lack empirical value. The article models the iterative design process for adaptive and adaptable systems, linked to the goals of UCE: supporting decisions, detecting problems and verifying quality. This model summarizes the variables to be assessed at each stage of the process and the relevant methods to assess them.

Background: Embodied conversational agents (ECAs) are animated computer characters that simulate face-to-face counseling. Owing to their capacity to establish and maintain an empathic relationship, they are deemed to be a promising tool for starting and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Objective: This review aimed to identify the current practices in designing and evaluating ECAs for coaching people in a healthy lifestyle and provide an overview of their efficacy (on behavioral, knowledge, and motivational parameters) and use (on usability, usage, and user satisfaction parameters). Methods: We used the Arksey and O’Malley framework to conduct a scoping review. PsycINFO, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, and Scopus were searched with a combination of terms related to ECA and lifestyle. Initially, 1789 unique studies were identified; 20 studies were included. Results: Most often, ECAs targeted physical activity (n=16) and had the appearance of a middle-aged African American woman (n=13). Multiple behavior change techniques (median=3) and theories or principles (median=3) were applied, but their interpretation and application were usually not reported. ECAs seemed to be designed for the end user rather than with the end user. Stakeholders were usually not involved. A total of 7 out of 15 studies reported better efficacy outcomes for the intervention group, and 5 out of 8 studies reported better use-related outcomes, as compared with the control group. Conclusions: ECAs are a promising tool for persuasive communication in the health domain. This review provided valuable insights into the current developmental processes, and it recommends the use of human-centered, stakeholder-inclusive design approaches, along with reporting on the design activities in a systematic and comprehensive manner. The gaps in knowledge were identified on the working mechanisms of intervention components and the right timing and frequency of coaching.