About Me
Research Interests
- Machine Learning
- Time Series Learning
- Manifold Geometry
- Brain Network
- Early Warning Algorithm in ICU
Publications
2015
Amina Russell; William Van Woensel; Samina Raza Abidi
The Shared Decision Making Frontier: Managing Non-Critical Chronic Illness by Combining Behavioural & Decision Theory with Online Technology Proceedings Article
In: MEDINFO 2015: eHealth-enabled Health, 2015.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Biomedical Technology Intervention, Choice Architecture, Chronic Illness, Shared Decision Making
@inproceedings{arussell-medinfo15,
title = {The Shared Decision Making Frontier: Managing Non-Critical Chronic Illness by Combining Behavioural & Decision Theory with Online Technology},
author = {Amina Russell and William Van Woensel and Samina Raza Abidi},
url = {http://web.cs.dal.ca/~woensel/paper/The Shared Decision Making Frontier a Feasibility and Usability Study for Managing Non-Critical Chronic Illness by Combining Behavioural & Decision Theory with Online Technology.pdf},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-09-19},
booktitle = {MEDINFO 2015: eHealth-enabled Health},
abstract = {Objective: To determine if shared decisions for managing non-critical chronic illness, made through an online biomedical technology intervention, proves feasible and usable. The technology intervention incorporates behavioural and decision theory to increase patient engagement, and ultimately long term adherence to health behaviour change.
Method: We devised the iheart web intervention as a “proof of concept” in five phases: 1) conceptual, 2) design, 3) application development, 4) testing and 5) study assessment. The implementation incorporates the Vaadin web application framework, Drools, EclipseLink and a MySQL database.
Results and discussion: Two-thirds of the study participants favoured the technology intervention, based on Likert-scale questions from a post-study questionnaire. Qualitative analysis of think aloud feedback, video screen captures and open-ended questions from the post-study questionnaire, uncovered six main areas or themes for improvement.
Conclusion: Online shared decisions for managing a non-critical chronic illness proved feasible and usable through the iheart web intervention. Areas needing improvement have been identified for the next application revision. An efficacy study is recommended as a next step.
},
keywords = {Biomedical Technology Intervention, Choice Architecture, Chronic Illness, Shared Decision Making},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
Objective: To determine if shared decisions for managing non-critical chronic illness, made through an online biomedical technology intervention, proves feasible and usable. The technology intervention incorporates behavioural and decision theory to increase patient engagement, and ultimately long term adherence to health behaviour change.
Method: We devised the iheart web intervention as a “proof of concept” in five phases: 1) conceptual, 2) design, 3) application development, 4) testing and 5) study assessment. The implementation incorporates the Vaadin web application framework, Drools, EclipseLink and a MySQL database.
Results and discussion: Two-thirds of the study participants favoured the technology intervention, based on Likert-scale questions from a post-study questionnaire. Qualitative analysis of think aloud feedback, video screen captures and open-ended questions from the post-study questionnaire, uncovered six main areas or themes for improvement.
Conclusion: Online shared decisions for managing a non-critical chronic illness proved feasible and usable through the iheart web intervention. Areas needing improvement have been identified for the next application revision. An efficacy study is recommended as a next step.
Method: We devised the iheart web intervention as a “proof of concept” in five phases: 1) conceptual, 2) design, 3) application development, 4) testing and 5) study assessment. The implementation incorporates the Vaadin web application framework, Drools, EclipseLink and a MySQL database.
Results and discussion: Two-thirds of the study participants favoured the technology intervention, based on Likert-scale questions from a post-study questionnaire. Qualitative analysis of think aloud feedback, video screen captures and open-ended questions from the post-study questionnaire, uncovered six main areas or themes for improvement.
Conclusion: Online shared decisions for managing a non-critical chronic illness proved feasible and usable through the iheart web intervention. Areas needing improvement have been identified for the next application revision. An efficacy study is recommended as a next step.