Persuading from the Start: Participatory Development of Sustainable Persuasive Data-Driven Technologies in Healthcare

Abstract

Data-driven technologies can persuade humans to optimize their behavior and context based on objective data. However, current data-driven technologies have limited persuasive powers, because of a misfit between technology, end-users and context. Neglecting end-users in the development process contributes to this misfit and to limited engagement with the to-be-developed technology. This threatens sustainable (long-term) implementation. Therefore, this paper demonstrates how a bottom-up participatory development approach can improve the persuasive design of data-driven technologies and simultaneously increase engagement of end-users to foster sustainable implementation. This is done by describing part of the development of an Audit & Feedback system for healthcare workers at a Dutch regional general hospital. The system intends to contribute to reducing antimicrobial resistance. The rationale for, questions asked at and results of a questionnaire and two focus groups are described.

Improving the Development and Implementation of Audit and Feedback Systems to Support Health Care Workers in Limiting Antimicrobial Resistance in the Hospital: Scoping Review

“…The ones audited, or auditees, were described by most studies (10/12, 83%) and comprised frontline HCWs [ 52 - 55 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 62 - 64 ].…”

“…Feedback recipients were described by most studies (8/12, 67%) and comprised auditees (ie, frontline HCWs) [ 55 , 60 , 62 ] and managers or administrators [ 53 , 54 , 59 , 63 , 64 ].…”

“…Approximately 67% (8/12) of the studies described APM-AF output in terms of specific content (eg, process, structure, and outcome indicators) [ 53 , 54 , 58 , 60 , 62 ] or provided a general description of output (eg, quality of antibiotic treatment) [ 55 , 59 , 63 ].…”

“…The level of feedback individualization was described by most studies (11/12, 92%). Feedback was provided on individual [ 55 , 61 ] or group level [ 53 , 62 - 64 ] or on both (ie, option to choose) [ 52 , 54 , 57 , 59 , 60 ]. Approximately 8% (2/12) of the studies explicitly justified their choice to provide group-level feedback only as individual feedback could be perceived as too threatening [ 53 , 63 ].…”

Finding the match between healthcare worker and expert for optimal audit and feedback on antimicrobial resistance prevention measures

“…Therefore, our findings complement the CDC's core elements, with the aim to evolve tracking and reporting into AF that serves both as a quality and safety strategy for the organization and as a learning system for HCW. By closely cooperating with HCW and AMR-experts from the start of the development process, we promote adopting an AMRminded way of thinking and intrinsic motivation to take shared ownership needed for successful APM [33].…”