Browsing by Author "Linden, Anna"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Correction: Investigating the Best Practices for Engagement in Remote Participatory Design: Mixed Methods Analysis of 4 Remote Studies With Family Caregivers
    (JMIR, 2024-12-31) Jolliff, Anna; Holden, Richard J.; Valdez, Rupa; Coller, Ryan J.; Patel, Himalaya; Zuraw, Matthew; Linden, Anna; Ganci, Aaron; Elliott, Christian; Werner, Nicole E.; Herron School of Art and Design
    [This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/60353.].
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Investigating the Best Practices for Engagement in Remote Participatory Design: Mixed Methods Analysis of 4 Remote Studies With Family Caregivers
    (JMIR, 2024-12-03) Jolliff, Anna; Holden, Richard J.; Valdez, Rupa; Coller, Ryan J.; Patel, Himalaya; Zuraw, Matthew; Linden, Anna; Ganci, Aaron; Elliott, Christian; Werner, Nicole E.; Herron School of Art and Design
    Background: Digital health interventions are a promising method for delivering timely support to underresourced family caregivers. The uptake of digital health interventions among caregivers may be improved by engaging caregivers in participatory design (PD). In recent years, there has been a shift toward conducting PD remotely, which may enable participation by previously hard-to-reach groups. However, little is known regarding how best to facilitate engagement in remote PD among family caregivers. Objective: This study aims to (1) understand the context, quality, and outcomes of family caregivers' engagement experiences in remote PD and (2) learn which aspects of the observed PD approach facilitated engagement or need to be improved. Methods: We analyzed qualitative and quantitative data from evaluation and reflection surveys and interviews completed by research and community partners (family caregivers) across 4 remote PD studies. Studies focused on building digital health interventions for family caregivers. For each study, community partners met with research partners for 4 to 5 design sessions across 6 months. After each session, partners completed an evaluation survey. In 1 of the 4 studies, research and community partners completed a reflection survey and interview. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize quantitative evaluation and reflection survey data, while reflexive thematic analysis was used to understand qualitative data. Results: In 62.9% (83/132) of evaluations across projects 1-3, participants described the session as "very effective." In 74% (28/38) of evaluations for project 4, participants described feeling "extremely satisfied" with the session. Qualitative data relating to the engagement context identified that the identities of partners, the technological context of remote PD, and partners' understanding of the project and their role all influenced engagement. Within the domain of engagement quality, relationship-building and co-learning; satisfaction with prework, design activities, time allotted, and the final prototype; and inclusivity and the distribution of influence contributed to partners' experience of engagement. Outcomes of engagement included partners feeling an ongoing interest in the project after its conclusion, gratitude for participation, and a sense of meaning and self-esteem. Conclusions: These results indicate high satisfaction with remote PD processes and few losses specific to remote PD. The results also demonstrate specific ways in which processes can be changed to improve partner engagement and outcomes. Community partners should be involved from study inception in defining the problem to be solved, the approach used, and their roles within the project. Throughout the design process, online tools may be used to check partners' satisfaction with design processes and perceptions of inclusivity and power-sharing. Emphasis should be placed on increasing the psychosocial benefits of engagement (eg, sense of community and purpose) and increasing opportunities to participate in disseminating findings and in future studies.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    User Personas to Guide Technology Intervention Design to Support Caregiver-Assisted Medication Management
    (Oxford, 2022-11) Linden, Anna; Loganathar, Priya; Holden, Richard; Boustani, Malaz; Campbell, Noll; Ganci, Aaron; Werner, Nicole; Herron School of Art
    Informal caregivers often help manage medications for people with ADRD. Caregiver-assisted medication management has the potential to optimize outcomes for caregivers and people with ADRD, but is often associated with suboptimal outcomes. We used the user-centered design persona method to represent the needs of ADRD caregivers who manage medications for people with ADRD to guide future design decisions for technology interventions. Data were collected through virtual contextual inquiry in which caregivers (Nf24) sent daily multimedia text messages depicting medication management activities for seven days each, followed by an interview that used the messages as prompts to understand medication management needs. We applied the persona development method to the data to identify distinct caregiver personas, i.e., evidence-derived groups of prospective users of a future intervention. We used team-based affinity diagramming to organize information about participants based on intragroup (dis)similarities, to create meaningful clusters representing intervention-relevant attributes. We then used group consensus discussion to create personas based on attribute clusters. The six identified attributes differentiating personas were: 1. medication acquisition, 2. medication organization, 3. medication administration, 4. monitoring symptoms, 5. care network, 6. technology preferences. Three personas were identified based on differences on those attributes: Regimented Ruth (independent, proactive, tech savvy, controls all medications), Intuitive Ian (collaborative, uses own judgment, some technology, provides some medication autonomy), Passive Pamela (reactive, easy going, technology novice, provides full medication autonomy). These personas can be used to guide technology intervention design by evaluating how well intervention designs support each of them.