Seven lessons for interdisciplinary research on interactive digital health interventions.
Seven lessons for interdisciplinary research on interactive digital health interventions.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/2055207618770325
复制
发表时间：
2018-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Murray E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Blandford A;Gibbs J;Newhouse N;Perski O;Singh A;Murray E
交互式数字健康干预措施的研究和开发需要多学科专业知识来确定用户需求，并制定和评估每项干预措施。所需专业知识的两个核心领域是健康（广义）和人机交互。尽管这些研究方法和价值观有一些共同点，但它们传统上存在深刻的差异，可能会让人们措手不及，并使跨学科合作具有挑战性，导致项目成果次优。最广泛讨论的是形成性评价（强调人机交互）和总结性评价（强调健康研究）之间的对比。然而，差异还远远不止于此，从所接受的证据的性质到报告的文化。在本文中，我们提出并讨论了七个教训，我们已经学到了对比的文化，价值观，假设和健康和人机交互的做法。这些课程是根据研究生命周期构建的，从为给定的数字干预建立最先进的技术水平，通过开发，评估和部署的各个（迭代）阶段，到报告研究结果。虽然我们的重点是使来自不同学科背景的人能够更好地相互理解，但我们也强调了在这个跨学科空间中未来研究可以得到更好支持的方式。
Research and development for interactive digital health interventions requires multi-disciplinary expertise in identifying user needs, and developing and evaluating each intervention. Two of the central areas of expertise required are Health (broadly defined) and Human–Computer Interaction. Although these share some research methods and values, they traditionally have deep differences that can catch people unawares, and make interdisciplinary collaborations challenging, resulting in sub-optimal project outcomes. The most widely discussed is the contrast between formative evaluation (emphasised in Human–Computer Interaction) and summative evaluation (emphasised in Health research). However, the differences extend well beyond this, from the nature of accepted evidence to the culture of reporting. In this paper, we present and discuss seven lessons that we have learned about the contrasting cultures, values, assumptions and practices of Health and Human–Computer Interaction. The lessons are structured according to a research lifecycle, from establishing the state of the art for a given digital intervention, moving through the various (iterative) stages of development, evaluation and deployment, through to reporting research results. Although our focus is on enabling people from different disciplinary backgrounds to work together with better mutual understanding, we also highlight ways in which future research in this interdisciplinary space could be better supported.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Greenhalgh T;A'Court C;Shaw S
通讯作者：
Shaw S
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Mohr, David C.;Schueller, Stephen M.;Cheung, Ken
通讯作者：
Cheung, Ken
DOI：
10.1037/hea0000306
发表时间：
2015-12
期刊：
Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association
影响因子：
--
作者：
Nahum-Shani I;Hekler EB;Spruijt-Metz D
通讯作者：
Spruijt-Metz D
制定和评估复杂的干预措施：新的医学研究委员会指南。
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.a1655
发表时间：
2008-09-29
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Craig P;Dieppe P;Macintyre S;Michie S;Nazareth I;Petticrew M;Medical Research Council Guidance
通讯作者：
Medical Research Council Guidance
影响因子：
--
作者：
Campbell, M;Fitzpatrick, R;Tyrer, P
通讯作者：
Tyrer, P