Ensuring a Consumer-Centered Evolution of Health 2.0
By Josh Seidman | Popularity: 27%
When Obama Administration Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra started his keynote at today’s Health 2.0 Conference in San Francisco, he began by mentioning the work that I did when the two of us were at the Advisory Board Company (that’s him there pointing to me), where I first began experimenting with the concept of information prescriptions. That came out of a two-year project (1999-2001) where we developed in-depth consumer health content. Just as (or maybe more) importantly, we shadowed patients and clinicians in hospitals and clinics and conducted dozens of structured interviews with people with diabetes (and their families).
The first panel that followed Chopra, I saw some cool tools demo-ed, but I didn’t get a sense of whether they truly support patient-centered care and meet consumers’ real health needs. After the panel on “Clinical Groupware and the Next Generation of Clinician-Patient Interaction Tools,” I asked the question:
“How did you collect information from consumers in advance of developing your applications? Did you do focus groups, structured interviews, or direct ethnographic observation to understand what tasks consumers really want to accomplish? And, at what point in the development process, did you do that critical research?”
Only one of the panelists chose to respond to the question (I think it was Arien Malec, VP, Product Management, Relay Health, but I’m not sure). His answer was somewhat vague (compared to my rather specific question), with the exception of discussing how they incorporate user feedback they receive after the deployment of tools. Although I agree that user feedback (a core part of the Health 2.0 model) is invaluable for refining tools, it is a fundamentally different part of the research & development arsenal. And, more to the point, it was not an answer to my question.
So, when (following an excellent “The Patient Is In” session) I moderated the “Search & Content” session that featured six different Health 2.0 demos, I decided to keep asking the question until I got an answer that satisfies me. After all, the main reason that I could see for creating a panel with the diversity of demos covering all of search and content was because they basically address how we can help consumers get the right information at the right time to meet their decision-making and health management needs (basically colloquial for information therapy). I figured that I might get a better answer if I re-framed the question:
“What did you do in advance of building your technology to ensure that what you were building met specific consumer needs?”
I admit it was a loaded question in that I have a strong bias. Before investing millions of dollars in product development, I believe that — if the goal is to develop consumer-centric tools — every company should begin with some combination of these patient-centered research approaches:
- Consumer surveys
- Focus groups with patients and families/caregivers
- Structured, extensive interviews with consumers
- Shadowing of patients and clinicians
- Direct, ethnographic observations of consumers in the settings where they “do” most of their health care (e.g., their homes, workplaces, schools, etc.)
If we want to meet Chopra’s call for robust innovation that transforms our economy and the health care delivery system, we first need to identify the health tasks that consumers want to accomplish. The best way to figure that out is to get answers directly from consumers before we write a single line of programming code.

RSS feed
October 7th, 2009 at 3:34 am
[…] Article Josh Seidman, Information Therapy (Ix) Blog, 7 October 2009 SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Ensuring a Consumer-Centered Evolution of Health 2.0″, url: “http://articles.icmcc.org/2009/10/07/ensuring-a-consumer-centered-evolution-of-health-2-0/” }); […]
October 7th, 2009 at 3:47 am
[…] Ensuring a Consumer-Centered Evolution of Health 2.0, Josh Seidman, Information Therapy (Ix) Blog SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Health 2.0 San Francisco Day 1″, url: “http://articles.icmcc.org/2009/10/07/health-2-0-san-francisco-day-1/” }); […]
October 7th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Josh, very very true. WE (Health 2.0 enthusiasts) are not typically like most healthcare consumers and patients. There is no doubt that Health 2.0 is where the future lies though!
A true grounding in reality comes from spending indepth quality time with real people with real healthcare problems. I highly recommend the approach Healthwise has adopted for generative research pre-design for healthcare solutions. We use several user-centered design steps to ensure that the user is “in the room” with us as we design.
For our Engagement and Microsite Solution in development, that was one of the 10 finalists for the Ideo Human Centered Design contest at the Health 2.0 Conference yesterday, there was not near enough time to explain the process.
For each solution ,we start with indepth interviews of users experiencing the health condition we are about to design for. We review the transcripts of those interviews for tasks, goals, beliefs and feelings. We also review thos transcripts for emotions and attitudes. The tasks/goals/beliefs become the foundation of our mental model, a process we’ve been instructed in and using for 2 years, based on the book “Mental Models: Aligning Design Strategy with Human Behavior” by Indi Young. I can’t say enough good things about this process — http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/mental-models/
A mental model is a fancy name for something super simple–a reflection and consolidation of what you know about your users. Once you have it complete, you can use it to compare your ideas against, and your current products. It helps you identify gaps in your thinking, product features and brainstorm new product or feature opportunities. It also acts as a guide to begin the Information Architecture and design of your solution.
We also use focus groups as a next step to help us sort out the gaps or confusing areas we saw in the mental model, to get more context, ideas and information, or perhaps shadowing or contextual inquiry to get additional information.
Once we have the basic ideas of our user’s reality in our collective knowledge, we can employ other User-Centered Design techniques as appropriate, including Card Sorting, Paper Prototyping, Usability Testing, User Surveys etc, ad infitum to ensure that the feedback loop with our users is constantly open and our design is constantly informed and improved by REAL users.
It gives you huge confidence to know that the decisions you make are grounded in what people really want. It takes times and discipline, but the rewards are rich.
I am glad to hear you bring up this issue, its so key, and what can be frustrating and exciting at the same time about using technology to reach health care consumers and patients. The coolest whiz bang health tool is the worst solution if the mainstream health user won’t engage with it and use it.
Julie Cabinaw - @healthux on twitter
October 20th, 2009 at 7:58 am
This is the future of health care. No doubt.