Objective. The aim of this study was to provide a critical understanding of the role of theories and their compatibility with a person-centered approach in the design and evaluation of web-based support for the management of chronic illness. Methods. Exploration of web-based support research projects focusing on four cases: (1) preschool children aged 4–6 with bladder dysfunction and urogenital malformation; (2) young adults aged 16–25 living with mental illness; (3) women with type 1 diabetes who are pregnant or in early motherhood; and (4) women who have undergone surgery for breast cancer. Data comprised interviews with research leaders and documented plans. Analysis was performed by means of a cross-case methodology. Results. The used theories concerned design, learning, health and well-being, or transition. All web support products had been developed using a participatory design (PD). Fundamental to the technology design and evaluation of outcomes were theories focusing on learning and on health and well-being. All theories were compatible with a person-centered approach. However, a notable exception was the relatively collective character of PD and Communities of Practice. Conclusion. Our results illustrate multifaceted ways for theories to be used in the design and evaluation of web-based support. 1. Introduction Increasingly, different types of web-based support are being developed for patients in managing their illness [1–6]. It has been argued that efficient support for managing chronic illnesses and conditions should be tailored to each person and his or her needs and preferences. In other words, it should be in line with a “person-centered care” philosophy (PCC) [7, 8]. Central to PCC is that the person is highlighted and considered from a broader, holistic perspective than merely in terms of medical status. PCC is based on the patient’s experience of his/her situation being a capable and active person with individual conditions and resources and with efforts to preserve their dignity [8–10]. PCC comprises openness and acknowledgement of each person’s perspective and special resources which assist them to be self-reflecting and capable of shared decision making despite health-related limitations. PCC brings attention to partnership, including shared power and responsibility between the person and the professional caregiver, with efforts to actively empower and involve the patient in the care process [7]. With this paper we want to highlight the PCC perspective [7] in web-based technology as utilized in the everyday life of persons with
References
[1]
M. Elf, H. Rystedt, J. Lundin, and B. Krevers, “Young carers as co-designers of a web-based support system—the views of two publics,” Informatics For Health and Social Care, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 203–216, 2012.
[2]
G. Elwyn, I. Kreuwel, M. A. Durand et al., “How to develop web-based decision support interventions for patients: a process map,” Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 260–265, 2011.
[3]
C. M. Ruland, J. Starren, and T. M. Vatne, “Participatory design with children in the development of a support system for patient-centered care in pediatric oncology,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 624–635, 2008.
[4]
F. Ventura, J. Ohlén, and I. Koinberg, “An integrative review of supportive e-health programs in cancer care,” European Journal of Oncology Nursing, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 498–507, 2012.
[5]
L. Ali, B. Krevers, N. Sj？str？m, and I. Sk？rs？ter, “Effectiveness of Internet versus folder support interventions for young informal carers of persons with mental,” Patient Education and Counceling, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 362–371, 2013.
[6]
M. Berg, A. S. Adolfsson, A. Ranerup, and C. Sparud-Lundin, “Person-centered web support to women with type 1 diabetes in pregnancy and early motherhood—the development process,” Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, vol. 15, no. 120, 5 pages, 2013.
[7]
I. Ekman, K. Swedberg, C. Taft, et al., “Person-centred care—ready for prime time,” European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 248–251, 2011.
[8]
B. McCormack, J. Dewing, and T. McCance, “Developing person-centred care: addressing contextual challenges through practice development,” Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, vol. 16, no. 2, article 3, 2011.
[9]
T. McCance, B. McCormack, and J. Dewing, “An exploration of person-centredness in practice,” Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, vol. 16, no. 2, article 1, 2011.
[10]
N. Mead and P. Bower, “Measuring patient-centredness: a comparison of three observation-based instruments,” Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 71–80, 2000.
[11]
S. Torsi, N. Nasr, P. C. Wright, S. J. Mawson, and G. A. Mountain, “User-centered design for supporting the self-management of chronic illnesses: an interdisciplinary approach,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PETRA '09), Corfu, Greece, June 2009.
[12]
A. M. H？stgaard, P. Bertelsen, and C. N？hr, “Methods to identify, study and understand end-user participation in HIT development,” BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, vol. 11, article 57, 2011.
[13]
S. G. S. Shah and I. Robinson, “Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation,” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 131–137, 2007.
[14]
J. Ekberg, L. Ericson, T. Timpka et al., “Web 2.0 systems supporting childhood chronic disease management: design guidelines based on information behaviour and social learning theories,” Journal of Medical Systems, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 107–117, 2010.
[15]
J. Fox, D. Glasspool, V. Patkar et al., “Delivering clinical decision support services: there is nothing as practical as a good theory,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 831–843, 2010.
[16]
F. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioural Research, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, USA, 3rd edition, 1986.
[17]
J. A. Hall and M. Schmid Mast, “Five ways of being “theoretical”: applications to provider-patient communication research,” Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 282–286, 2009.
[18]
D. L. Berry, B. Halpenny, S. Wolpin et al., “Development and evaluation of the personal patient profile-prostate (P3P), a web-based decision support system for men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 12, no. 4, article e67, 2010.
[19]
M. A. Durand, M. Stiel, J. Boivin, and G. Elwyn, “Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies,” Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 125–135, 2008.
[20]
K. A. Cameron, “A practitioner's guide to persuasion: an overview of 15 selected persuasion theories, models and frameworks,” Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 309–317, 2009.
[21]
G. Elwyn, M. Stiel, M.-A. Durand, and J. Boivin, “The design of patient decision support interventions: addressing the theory-practice gap,” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 565–574, 2011.
[22]
C. Sparud-Lundin, U. Josefsson, M. Berg, et al., “Use of participatory design in the development of person-centered web-based support for persons with long-term illness,” European Journal For Person Centered Healthcare, vol. 3, no. 2, 2013.
[23]
J. Gregory, “Scandinavian approaches to participatory design,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 62–74, 2003.
[24]
C. Spinuzzi, “The methodology of participatory design,” Technical Communication, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 163–174, 2005.
[25]
E. Wenger, Communities of Practice—Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2008.
[26]
L. Vygotsky, Thought and Language, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1986.
[27]
R. S？lj？, “Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 53–64, 2010.
[28]
F. Marton and S. Booth, Learning and Awareness, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1997.
[29]
M. Eriksson and B. Lindstr？m, “A salutogenic interpretation of the Ottawa Charter,” Health Promotion International, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 190–199, 2008.
[30]
A. Antonovsky, Unraveling the Mystery of Health: How People Manage Stress and Stay Well, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 1987.
[31]
A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY, USA, 1997.
[32]
T. L. Albrecht, D. J. Goldsmith, and T. L. Thompson, “Social support, social networks and health,” in Handbook of Health Communication, K. M. Thompson, A. Dorsey, and R. Parrott, Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 2003.
[33]
D. O. Braithwaite, V. R. Waldron, and J. Finn, “Communication of social support in computer-mediated groups for people with disabilities,” Health Communication, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 123–151, 1999.
[34]
A. I. Meleis, Transitions Theory, Middle-Range and Situation-Specific Theories in Nursing Research and Practice, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2010.
[35]
J. J. Arnett, “Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties,” The American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 469–480, 2000.
[36]
A. I. Meleis, L. M. Sawyer, E. O. Im, D. K. H. Messias, and K. Schumacher, “Experiencing transitions: an emerging middle-range theory,” Advances in Nursing Science, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 12–28, 2000.
[37]
D. Kralik, K. Visentin, and A. van Loon, “Transition: a literature review,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 320–329, 2006.
[38]
U. Josefsson, Coping Online. Patients' Use of the Internet, IT University of Gothenburg, G？teborg, Sweden, 2007.
[39]
C. R. Lyles, L. T. Harris, T. Le et al., “Qualitative evaluation of a mobile phone and web-based collaborative care intervention for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 563–569, 2011.
[40]
B. Holtz and C. Lauckner, “Diabetes management via mobile phones: a systematic review,” Telemedicine and e-Health, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 175–184, 2012.
[41]
A. Boivin, F. Légaré, and P. Lehoux, “Decision technologies as normative instruments: exposing the values within,” Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 426–430, 2008.
