Feedback to renal transplant patients in a self-management support system

Motivation -- A key function of a future self-management support system (SMSS) for renal transplant patients is to provide feedback about their health status. This study investigates patients' understanding, preference, and trust of such feedback. Research approach -- Three types of feedback form, namely simplicity, empathy, and empowerment, were designed and tested with 12 non-patients. The task completeness and the participants' preference were compared. Findings -- The users did trust the empowerment feedback more than other feedback. Furthermore, the feedback types seemed to influence users' ability of reporting their previous days' health status. Research limitations/Implications -- This research worked out three feedback types and provided insight into their effectiveness and preference. However, the number of participants was small, and they were non-patients, highly educated and relatively young. Originality/Value -- This research investigated different feedback types for self-management support systems in the healthcare domain. Take away message -- The different way of presenting the same information might influence users' trust and understanding of their health status.

[1]  A. S. Wiener,et al.  Transplantation , 1963 .

[2]  Rosalind W. Picard.  Affective Computing , 1997 .

[3]  J. Chapman.  The KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for the care of kidney transplant recipients. , 2010, Transplantation.

[4]  J Hornberger,et al.  Incidence and long-term cost of steroid-related side effects after renal transplantation. , 1999, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[5]  K. Lorig,et al.  Self-management education: History, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms , 2003, Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

[6]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do , 2002, UBIQ.

[7]  Kdoqi Disclaimer.  K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. , 2002, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[8]  T. Bodenheimer,et al.  Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. , 2002, JAMA.

[9]  Francis L. Delmonico,et al.  ACUTE HUMORAL REJECTION IN RENAL ALLOGRAFT RECIPIENTS: I. INCIDENCE, SEROLOGY AND CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS1 , 2001, Transplantation.

[10]  K. Lorig,et al.  Internet-Based Chronic Disease Self-Management: A Randomized Trial , 2006, Medical care.

[11]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Minimalist design for active users , 1987 .

[12]  Ethan M Balk,et al.  K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. , 2002, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[13]  Mark A. Neerincx,et al.  Incorporating guidelines for health assistance into a socially intelligent robot , 2006, ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[14]  Emiel Krahmer,et al.  Problem detection in human-machine interactions based on facial expressions of users , 2005, Speech Commun..

[15]  C. Wright,et al.  Self-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: a review. , 2002, Patient education and counseling.

[16]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[17]  K. Blanchard,et al.  Empowerment Takes More Than a Minute , 1996 .

[18]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..