Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

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.

Background: Digital health refers to the proper use of technology for improving the health and well-being of people and enhancing the care of patients through the intelligent processing of clinical and genetic data. Despite increasing interest in well-being in both health care and technology, there is no clear understanding of what constitutes well-being, which leads to uncertainty in how to create well-being through digital health. In an effort to clarify this uncertainty, Brey developed a framework to define problems in technology for well-being using the following four categories: epistemological problem, scope problem, specification problem, and aggregation problem. Objective: This systematic scoping review aims to gain insights into how to define and address well-being in digital health. Methods: We followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. Papers were identified from 6 databases and included if they addressed the design or evaluation of digital health and reported the enhancement of patient well-being as their purpose. These papers were divided into design and evaluation papers. We studied how the 4 problems in technology for well-being are considered per paper. Results: A total of 117 studies were eligible for analysis (n=46, 39.3% design papers and n=71, 60.7% evaluation papers). For the epistemological problem, the thematic analysis resulted in various definitions of well-being, which were grouped into the following seven values: healthy body, functional me, healthy mind, happy me, social me, self-managing me, and external conditions. Design papers mostly considered well-being as healthy body and self-managing me, whereas evaluation papers considered the values of healthy mind and happy me. Users were rarely involved in defining well-being. For the scope problem, patients with chronic care needs were commonly considered as the main users. Design papers also regularly involved other users, such as caregivers and relatives. These users were often not involved in evaluation papers. For the specification problem, most design and evaluation papers focused on the provision of care support through a digital platform. Design papers used numerous design methods, whereas evaluation papers mostly considered pre-post measurements and randomized controlled trials. For the aggregation problem, value conflicts were rarely described. Conclusions: Current practice has found pragmatic ways of circumventing or dealing with the problems of digital health for well-being. Major differences exist between the design and evaluation of digital health, particularly regarding their conceptualization of well-being and the types of users studied. In addition, we found that current methodologies for designing and evaluating digital health can be improved. For optimal digital health for well-being, multidisciplinary collaborations that move beyond the common dichotomy of design and evaluation are needed.

The purpose of this research is to explore the roles that sports trackers and running-related data play in runners’ personal goal achievement. A two-week diary study and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 runners to explore how runners engage with their running-related data to set and achieve their running goals. We found that participants pursued and transitioned between different running goals as their needs, abilities, and surrounding environment changed. We also found multiple motivations that shaped the use of sports trackers. We identified two main categories in runners’ motivations for using trackers and data to achieve their goals. These categories were (i) documenting and tracking in running, and (ii) supporting goal-oriented reflections and actions, with various reasons for use while preparing for and during running. This study provides insights into the psychological effects of running-related data and signals practical implications for runners and developers of tracking technology.