Towards design sociology

Lupton, Deborah

doi:10.1111/soc4.12546

Cited by 33 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The emerging literature on the use of practical workshops in knowledge creation helps explain why our focus on building one's own framework appeared to be more successful than inviting groups to use off-the-shelf frameworks. This literature includes reviews of approaches to co-creation of knowledge 102 and the sociology of design, 103 and (more specifically relevant to our empirical work) a recent theorization of "collective making." 29 In the last of these, Langley et al propose three domains of influence when people from different sectors come together to engage in creative play:…”

Section: Comparison With Other Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot

Greenhalgh

Hinton

Finlay

et al. 2019

Health Expectations

577

650

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Numerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous. Objectives To identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability. Search strategy Keyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts. Inclusion criteria Published, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health‐related research. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co‐design workshops, we tested evidence‐based resources based on the review findings. Results Our final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power‐focused; priority‐setting; study‐focused; report‐focused; and partnership‐focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence‐based facilitator notes for a “build your own framework” co‐design workshop. Conclusion The plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off‐the‐shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence‐based resources which stakeholders can use to co‐design their own frameworks.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Other Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot

Greenhalgh

Hinton

Finlay

et al. 2019

Health Expectations

577

650

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Co-design research is recognized as an important means to establish the effective and responsible delivery of mHealth technologies [23-25]. In this section, we highlight how we engaged PLWH and clinicians in co-design to elicit current challenges of HIV care and to consider the potential uses and implications of integrating an mHealth platform within existing care pathways.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of an mHealth platform for HIV Care: Gathering User Perspectives Through Co-Design Workshops and Interviews

Marent¹,

Henwood²,

Darking³

2018

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDespite advances in testing and treatment, HIV incidence rates within European countries are at best stable or else increasing. mHealth technology has been advocated to increase quality and cost-effectiveness of health services while dealing with growing patient numbers. However, studies suggested that mHealth apps are rarely adopted and often considered to be of low quality by users. Only a few studies (conducted in the United States) have involved people living with HIV (PLWH) in the design of mHealth.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to facilitate a co-design process among PLWH and clinicians across 5 clinical sites in the European Union to inform the development of an mHealth platform to be integrated into clinical care pathways. We aimed to (1) elicit experiences of living with HIV and of working in HIV care, (2) identify mHealth functionalities that are considered useful for HIV care, and (3) identify potential benefits as well as concerns about mHealth.MethodsBetween January and June 2016, 14 co-design workshops and 22 semistructured interviews were conducted, involving 97 PLWH and 63 clinicians. Data were analyzed thematically and iteratively, drawing on grounded theory techniques.ResultsFindings were established into 3 thematic clusters: (1) approaching the mHealth platform, (2) imagining the mHealth platform, and (3) anticipating the mHealth platform’s implications. Co-design participants approached the mHealth platform with pre-existing concerns arising from their experiences of receiving or providing care. PLWH particularly addressed issues of stigma and questioned how mHealth could enable them to manage their HIV. Clinicians problematized the compatibility of mHealth with existing information technology systems and questioned which patients should be targeted by mHealth. Imagining the potential of mHealth for HIV care, co-design participants suggested medical functionalities (accessing test results, managing medicines and appointments, and digital communication channels), social functionalities (peer support network, international travel, etc), and general features (security and privacy, credibility, language, etc). Co-design participants also anticipated potential implications of mHealth for self-management and the provision of care.ConclusionsOur approach to co-design enabled us to facilitate early engagement in the mHealth platform, enabling patient and clinician feedback to become embedded in the development process at a preprototype phase. Although the technologies in question were not yet present, understanding how users approach, imagine, and anticipate technology formed an important source of knowledge and proved highly significant within the technology design and development process.

show abstract

“…Social design research has recently been recognised as important means to establish the effective and responsible delivery of digital health technologies (Lupton 2017a, Lupton 2017c.…”

Section: Initiating Co-designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Together, we designed a protocol for engaging patients and clinicians alongside the iterative phases of the platform's design and implementation. It was decided to use co-design workshops as main method to involve potential users in design activities to develop ideas and identify challenges (Lupton 2017c, Robert 2013). However, co-design workshops are also recognized as a challenging method (Robert 2013).…”

Section: Initiating Co-designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambivalence in digital health: Co-designing an mHealth platform for HIV care

Marent

Henwood

Darking

2018

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In reaction to polarised views on the benefits or drawbacks of digital health, the notion of 'ambivalence' has recently been proposed as a means to grasp the nuances and complexities at play when digital technologies are embedded within practices of care. This article responds to this proposal by demonstrating how ambivalence can work as a reflexive approach to evaluate the potential implications of digital health. We first outline current theoretical advances in sociology and organisation science and define ambivalence as a relational and multidimensional concept that can increase reflexivity within innovation processes. We then introduce our empirical case and highlight how we engaged with the HIV community to facilitate a co-design space where 97 patients (across five European clinical sites: Antwerp, Barcelona, Brighton, Lisbon, Zagreb) were encouraged to lay out their approaches, imaginations and anticipations towards a prospective mHealth platform for HIV care. Our analysis shows how patients navigated ambivalence within three dimensions of digital health: quantification, connectivity and instantaneity. We provide examples of how potential tensions arising through remote access to quantified data, new connections with care providers or instant health alerts were distinctly approached alongside embodied conditions (e.g. undetectable viral load) and embedded socio-material environments (such as stigma or unemployment). We conclude that ambivalence can counterbalance fatalistic and optimistic accounts of technology and can support social scientists in taking-up their critical role within the configuration of digital health interventions.

show abstract

Towards design sociology

Cited by 33 publications

References 56 publications

Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot

Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot

Development of an mHealth platform for HIV Care: Gathering User Perspectives Through Co-Design Workshops and Interviews

Ambivalence in digital health: Co-designing an mHealth platform for HIV care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About