The gap between research and design practice has long been a concern for the HCI community. In this article, we explore how different translations of HCI knowledge might bridge this gap. A literature review characterizes the gap as having two key dimensions - one between general theory and particular artefacts and a second between academic HCI research and professional UX design practice. We report on a 5-year engagement between HCI researchers and a major media company to explore how a particular piece of HCI research, the trajectories conceptual framework, might be translated for and with UX practitioners. We present various translations of this framework and fit them into the gap we previously identified. This leads us to refine the idea of translations, suggesting that they may be led by researchers, by practitioners or co-produced by both as boundary objects. We consider the benefits of each approach.
MULTIFILE
Presentation on Etmaal 2020 about patient practitioner interaction in health communication. "Etmaal van de Communicatiewetenschap" is the annual conference for all communciation science scolars in the Netherlands, Flanders, and beyond. On the 6th and 7th of February 2020 it was hosted by the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) at the University of Amsterdam.
Objectives There is a broad call for change towards € new era' quality systems in healthcare, in which the focus lies on learning and improving. A promising way to establish this in general practice care is to combine audit and feedback with peer group discussion. However, it is not known what different stakeholders think of this type of quality improvement. The aim of this research was to explore the opinions of different stakeholders in general practice on peer discussion of audit and feedback and on its opportunities and risks. Second, their thoughts on transparency versus accountability, regarding this system, were studied. Design An exploratory qualitative study within a constructivist paradigm. Semistructured interviews and focus group discussions were held and coded using thematic analysis. Included stakeholders were general practitioners (GP), patients, professional organisations and insurance companies. Setting General practice in the Netherlands. Participants 22 participants were purposively sampled for eight interviews and two focus group discussions. Results Three main opportunities of peer discussion of audit and feedback were identified: deeper levels of reflection on data, adding context to numbers and more ownership; and three main risks: handling of unwilling colleagues, lacking a safe group and the necessity of patient involvement. An additional theme concerned disagreement on the amount of transparency to be offered: insurance companies and patients advocated for complete transparency on data and improvement of outcomes, while GPs and professional organisations urged to restrict transparency to giving insight into the process. Conclusions Peer discussion of audit and feedback could be part of a change movement, towards a quality system based on learning and trust, that is initiated by the profession. Creating a safe learning environment and involving patients is key herein. Caution is needed when complete transparency is asked, since it could jeopardise practitioners' reflection and learning in safety.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the use of eHealth tools became increasingly demanded by patients and encouraged by the Dutch government. Yet, HBO health professionals demand clarity on what they can do, must do, and cannot do with the patients’ data when using digital healthcare provision and support. They often perceive the EU GDPR and its national application as obstacles to the use of eHealth due to strict health data processing requirements. They highlight the difficulty of keeping up with the changing rules and understanding how to apply them. Dutch initiatives to clarify the eHealth rules include the 2021 proposal of the wet Elektronische Gegevensuitwisseling in de Zorg and the establishment of eHealth information and communication platforms for healthcare practitioners. The research explores whether these initiatives serve the needs of HBO health professionals. The following questions will be explored: - Do the currently applicable rules and the proposed wet Elektronische Gegevensuitwisseling in de Zorg clarify what HBO health practitioners can do, must do, and cannot do with patients’ data? - Does the proposed wet Elektronische Gegevensuitwisseling in de Zorg provide better clarity on the stakeholders who may access patients’ data? Does it ensure appropriate safeguards against the unauthorized use of such data? - Does the proposed wet Elektronische Gegevensuitwisseling in de Zorg clarify the EU GDPR requirements for HBO health professionals? - Do the eHealth information and communication platforms set up for healthcare professionals provide the information that HBO professionals need on data protection and privacy requirements stemming from the EU GDPR and from national law? How could such platforms be better adjusted to the HBO professionals’ information and communication needs? Methodology: Practice-oriented legal research, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions will be conducted. Results will be translated to solutions for HBO health professionals.
