As wearables become increasingly prevalent, there is a concurrent and growing expectation that we use these devices to track and monitor our bodily states in order to be responsible "biocitizens." To mitigate this, some health, design, and usability scholars have advocated for greater patient control over health data. To support these efforts, this article offers a set of criteria for analyzing wearables, criteria that account for the handling of data and user connections via wearables as they relate to three priorities: accessibility, adaptability, and iterability. These are meant to support analyses that will clarify the ways wearables can more ethically serve end-users'---that is, patients' and wearers'---emerging needs, rather than primarily serving the intermediary goals of care delivery personnel and systems to monitor and manage patient behavior. To do this, this article addresses the usability of wearables as it relates to other critical care issues, such as "information integrity" and enabling patients to maintain their own health records and participate in shared decision making.

Transitional care communication events-such as discharge from hospital-are complex and dynamic: impromptu questions are asked and answered, documents are discussed and signed, and health-care professionals and patients with different knowledge must work together to establish understanding. This article examines a set of patient discharge instructions that bear substantial traces of impromptu conversation in the patient discharge communication process and argues that we need to do more to account for such exchanges as a part of the complex information our documentation must coordinate and make accessible for end users.

In 2013, in accordance with a provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010), the U.S. government began fining hospitals with "excessive" patient readmission rates. Those working to respond to this issue have identified discharge communication with patients as a critical component. In response to this exigency and to contribute to the conversation in the medical humanities about the field's purview and orientation, this article analyzes studies of and texts about communication in health and medicine, ultimately arguing that the on-going circulation of compliance rhetoric and assumptions has limited efforts to improve patient communication. The article, furthermore, considers that humanist ideals of agentic action, the patient-centered care movement's emphasis on the patient, and biomedicine's tendency to treat evidence-based knowledge as fixed and given may have combined to support a rationale for using patient adherence to treatment guidelines as metrics in measurement studies designed to identify effective communication strategies. Finally, the article proposes that those working in the medical humanities consider the value of interdisciplinary posthumanist scholarship-specifically, its treatment of agency and knowledge as emergent, distributed, and contingent-and its potential to transform or extend in productive ways the conversation about what constitutes effective communication with patients.

No abstract

No abstract