Putting the Value in VR

Kip, Hanneke; Kelders, Saskia M.; Gemert-Pijnen, Lisette van

doi:10.1145/3290605.3300365

Cited by 8 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to integrate eHealth in treatment guided by the RNR model, thorough development, implementation and evaluation are important (76). Multiple researchers recommended to develop new interventions via a participatory development approach, in which patients, therapists and other stakeholders are actively involved throughout the entire process (77)(78)(79). This approach is used to ensure that the intervention fits the characteristics, wishes, treatment protocols and risk factors (78).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Perspective on the Integration of eHealth in Treatment of Offenders: Combining Technology and the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model

Kip

Bouman²

2021

Front. Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While there are multiple ways in which eHealth interventions such as online modules, apps and virtual reality can improve forensic psychiatry, uptake in practice is low. To overcome this problem, better integration of eHealth in treatment is necessary. In this perspective paper, we describe how the possibilities of eHealth can be connected to the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model. To account for the risk-principle, stand-alone eHealth interventions might be used to offer more intensive treatment to high-risk offenders. The need-principle can be addressed by connecting novel experience-based interventions such as VR and apps to stable and acute dynamic risk factors. Finally, using and combining personalized interventions is in line with the responsivity-principle. Based on research inside and outside of forensic psychiatry, we conclude that there are many possibilities for eHealth to improve treatment—not just based on RNR, but also on other models. However, there is a pressing need for more development, implementation and evaluation research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Perspective on the Integration of eHealth in Treatment of Offenders: Combining Technology and the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model

Kip

Bouman²

2021

Front. Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The arrows represent the iterative nature of the process and show that the methods and results of the contextual inquiry and value specification are not strictly separated but overlap. For more in-depth information about the results of the interviews and questionnaire, we refer readers to 2 other papers [29,30] that focus more on the content of the results and potential of VR for forensic mental health instead of a reflection on the methods and overall development process.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Importance of Systematically Reporting and Reflecting on eHealth Development: Participatory Development Process of a Virtual Reality Application for Forensic Mental Health Care

Kip¹,

Kelders²,

Bouman³

et al. 2019

J Med Internet Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe use of electronic health (eHealth) technologies in practice often is lower than expected, mostly because there is no optimal fit among a technology, the characteristics of prospective users, and their context. To improve this fit, a thorough systematic development process is recommended. However, more knowledge about suitable development methods is necessary to create a tool kit that guides researchers in choosing development methods that are appropriate for their context and users. In addition, there is a need for reflection on the existing frameworks for eHealth development to be able to constantly improve them.ObjectiveThe two main objectives of this case study were to present and reflect on the (1) methods used in the development process of a virtual reality application for forensic mental health care and (2) development model that was used: the CeHRes Roadmap (the Centre for eHealth Research Roadmap).MethodsIn the development process, multiple methods were used to operationalize the first 2 phases of the CeHRes Roadmap: the contextual inquiry and value specification. To summarize the most relevant information for the goals of this study, the following information was extracted per method: (1) research goal, (2) explanation of the method used, (3) main results, (4) main conclusions, and (5) lessons learned about the method.ResultsInformation on 10 methods used is presented in a structured manner. These 10 methods were stakeholder identification, project team composition, focus groups, literature study, semistructured interviews, idea generation with scenarios, Web-based questionnaire, value specification, idea generation with prototyping, and a second round of interviews. The lessons learned showed that although each method added new insights to the development process, not every method appeared to be the most appropriate for each research goal.ConclusionsReflection on the methods used pointed out that brief methods with concrete examples or scenarios fit the forensic psychiatric patients the best, among other things, because of difficulties with abstract reasoning and low motivation to invest much time in participating in research. Formulating clear research questions based on a model’s underlying principles and composing a multidisciplinary project team with prospective end users appeared to be important in this study. The research questions supported the project team in keeping the complex development processes structured and prevented tunnel vision. With regard to the CeHRes Roadmap, continuous stakeholder involvement and formative evaluations were evaluated as strong points. A suggestion to further improve the Roadmap is to explicitly integrate the use of domain-specific theories and models. To create a tool kit with a broad range of methods for eHealth development and further improve development models, studies that report and reflect on development processes in a consistent and structured manner are needed.

show abstract

“…Two authors (HK and JK) categorized the methods and products in these papers based on the definitions of the phases of the CeHRes Roadmap [11]. [15,21,24,26,28-31,33,34,40,44,45,47,49,50,52,54-56, 58,61,67,69,70,74,76,78,79,81,83,84,88,89,91,96-129,178] 21 (30) 32 ( 46) 41 ( 59) Interview (n=70) [15,24,26,29,[32][33][34]46,49,56,60,67,69,71,76,80,84,89,[96][97][98]101,104,107,109,115,[125][126][127] 19 (37) 16 (31) 28 ( 55) Questionnaire (n=51) [8,20,21,24,25,[37][38][39][41][42][43]45,…”

Section: Overview Of Methods and Products Per Phase Of The Cehres Roa...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First of all, in multiple papers, authors mentioned the importance of individual, in-depth interviews to incorporate the perspective of vulnerable, complex target groups such as people with dementia or severe mental illness in eHealth development [15,21,61,70,96,97,109,111,121,123,127]. This is especially important because perspectives of these underserved target groups are often overlooked in eHealth development.…”

Section: Lessons Learnedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, researchers should account for the characteristics of their target groups by, for instance, keeping the interviews as short as possible [78,128]. Another option is the use of concrete examples of eHealth technologies to account for response or recollection biases [24,52,97,121,123]. Second, although interviews can yield valuable results, a limitation is that they can offer a 1-sided picture of stakeholders' needs and wishes regarding eHealth.…”

Section: Lessons Learnedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methods for Human-Centered eHealth Development: Narrative Scoping Review (Preprint)

Kip¹,

Keizer²,

Silva³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Thorough participatory development of eHealth is necessary to ensure a good fit between the technology, its users and the context. However, despite the importance of development and the availability of frameworks, not much is known about specific methods for different aims, phases and settings, resulting in researchers having to reinvent the wheel. Consequently, there is a need to synthesize existing knowledge on methods for participatory development processes for eHealth interventions. OBJECTIVE The three main goals of this review were (1) to create an overview of development methods used in studies based on the CeHRes Roadmap, (2) to create an overview of goals for which these methods can be used, and (3) to provide insight into the lessons learned about these methods. METHODS We included eHealth development studies that were based on the phases and/or principles of the CeHRes Roadmap. This framework was selected due to its focus on participatory, iterative eHealth design in context and to limit the scope of this review. Data were extracted about the type of method used, the rationale for using the method, the research questions, and reported information on lessons learned. The most mentioned lessons learned were summarized via a narrative, inductive approach. RESULTS The search strategy resulted in 160 papers. A distinction was made between development 'methods' (n = 10) and 'products' (n = 7). Methods are used to gather new data, while products can be used to synthesize previously collected data and to support the collection of new data. The identified methods were: focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, usability tests, literature studies, desk research, log data analyses, card sorting, Delphi studies, and experience sampling. The identified products were: prototypes, requirements, stakeholder maps, values, behavior change strategies, personas, and business models. Examples of how these methods and products were applied in the development process and information about lessons learned were provided. CONCLUSIONS This study shows that there is a plethora of methods and products that can be used at different points in the development process and in different settings. To do justice to the complexity of eHealth development, it seems that multiple methods should be combined, and attention should be paid to the way in which they are complementary. Additionally, we found no evidence that there is a single step-by-step approach to develop eHealth: rather, researchers need to select the most suitable research methods for their research objectives, the context in which data is collected, and the characteristics of the participants. The current study serves as a first step towards a toolkit to support researchers in shaping the most suitable and efficient development process for eHealth interventions that fit with their context and users.

show abstract

Putting the Value in VR

Cited by 8 publications

References 38 publications

A Perspective on the Integration of eHealth in Treatment of Offenders: Combining Technology and the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model

A Perspective on the Integration of eHealth in Treatment of Offenders: Combining Technology and the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model

The Importance of Systematically Reporting and Reflecting on eHealth Development: Participatory Development Process of a Virtual Reality Application for Forensic Mental Health Care

Methods for Human-Centered eHealth Development: Narrative Scoping Review (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About