Transforming paper-based assessment forms to a digital format: Exemplified by the Housing Enabler prototype app

References

• Brown A, Fishenden J, Thompson M. Introduction. In: Digitizing government. UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. p. 1–11. (Business in the Digital Economy).
   Google Scholar
• Silva BMC, Rodrigues JJPC, de la Torre Díez I, et al. Mobile-health: a review of current state in 2015. J Biomed Inform. 2015;56:265–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones SS, Rudin RS, Perry T, et al. Health information technology: an updated systematic review with a focus on meaningful use. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:48–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwarsson S, Slaug B. Housing enabler – a method for rating/screening and analysing accessibility problems in housing: manual for the complete instrument and screening tool. 2nd ed. Lund; Staffanstorp: Veten & Skapen HB and Slaug Enabling Development; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher AG, Jones KB. Assessment of motor and process skills: volume 1 – development, standardization and administration manual. 7th rev. ed. Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher AG, Jones KB. Assessment of motor and process skills: volume 2 – user manual. 8th ed. Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Jamal A, McKenzie K, Clark M. The impact of health information technology on the quality of medical and health care: a systematic review. HIM J. 2009;38:26–37.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Agarwal R, Gao G, DesRoches C, Jha AK. The digital transformation of healthcare: current status and the road ahead. Inf Syst Res. 2010;21:796–809.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fänge A, Risser R, Iwarsson S. Challenges in implementation of research methodology in community-based occupational therapy: the housing enabler example. Scand J Occup Ther. 2007;14:54–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schaper LK, Pervan GP. ICT and OTs: a model of information and communication technology acceptance and utilisation by occupational therapists. Int J Med Inf. 2007 ;76(Suppl.1):S212–S221.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chedid RJ, Dew A, Veitch C. Barriers to the use of information and communication technology by occupational therapists working in a rural area of New South Wales, Australia. Aust Occup Ther J. 2013;60:197–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ventola CL. Mobile devices and apps for health care professionals: uses and benefits. Pharm Ther. 2014;39:356–364.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick G, Ellingsen G. A review of 25 years of CSCW research in healthcare: contributions, challenges and future agendas. Comput Support Coop Work. 2012 Jun 21;22:609–665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karsh B-T, Weinger MB, Abbott PA, et al. Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17:617–623.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adler-Milstein J, Bates DW. Paperless healthcare: progress and challenges of an IT-enabled healthcare system. Bus Horiz. 2010;53:119–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaeffer NC, Presser S. The science of asking questions. Annu Rev Sociol. 2003;29:65–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polašek O, Kern J. Medical informatics across Europe: analysis of medical informatics scientific output in 33 European countries. Inform Health Soc Care. 2012;37:12–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kujala S. User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behav Inf Technol. 2003;22:1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bano M, Zowghi D. User involvement in software development and system success: a systematic literature review. Paper presented at: EASE ’13: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. New York, NY: ACM; 2013. p. 125–130.
   Google Scholar
• Damodaran L. User involvement in the systems design process – a practical guide for users. Behav Inf Technol. 1996 Nov;15:363–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawton MP, Nahemow L. Ecology and the aging process. In: Eisdorfer C, Lawton MP, editors. The psychology of adult development and aging. Washington: American Psychological Association; 1973. p. 619–74.
   Google Scholar
• Helle T, Nygren C, Slaug B, et al. The nordic housing enabler: inter-rater reliability in cross-nordic occupational therapy practice. Scand J Occup Ther. 2010;17:258–266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders L. On modeling: an evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions. 2008;15:13–17.
   Google Scholar
• Bødker S, Iversen OS. Staging a professional participatory design practice: moving PD beyond the initial fascination of user involvement. Paper presented at: NordiCHI ‘02: Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human–Computer Interaction. New York: ACM; 2002. p. 11–18.
   Google Scholar
• Spinuzzi C. The methodology of participatory design. Tech Commun. 2005;52:163–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballejos LC, Montagna JM. Method for stakeholder identification in interorganizational environments. Requir Eng. 2008;13:281–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders EB-N, Brandt E, Binder T. A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. Paper presented at: PDC ‘10: Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference [Internet]. New York, NY: ACM; 2010. p. 195–198.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson C. Interview techniques for UX practitioners. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann; 2013: p. 100.
   Google Scholar
• Greenbaum TL. The handbook for focus group research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Koskinen I, Zimmerman J, Binder T, Redstrom J, Wensveen S. Design research through practice. Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann; 2011. p. 224.
   Google Scholar
• Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Kanstrup AM, Christiansen ET. Asymmetrical learning create and sustain users’ drive to innovate, when involved in information systems design. In: Mesquita A, editor. Sociological and philosophical aspects of human interaction with technology: advancing concepts. Hershey: IGI Global; 2011. p. 305–316.
   Google Scholar
• Halskov K, Dalsgaard P. Inspiration card workshops. In: DIS ‘06: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. New York: ACM; 2006. p. 2–11.
   Google Scholar
• Dumas JS, Fox JE. In: Sears A, Jacko JA, editors. Human–computer interaction: development process. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Tohidi M, Buxton W, Baecker R, Sellen A. Getting the right design and the design right. Paper presented at: CHI ’06: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM; 2006. p. 1243–1252.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly D. Methods for evaluating interactive information retrieval systems with users. Found Trends Inf Retr. 2009;3:1–224.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers Y, Sharp H, Preece J. Interaction design: beyond human: computer interaction. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Wiley; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Jaspers MWM, Steen T, van den BC, Geenen M. The think aloud method: a guide to user interface design. Int J Med Inform. 2004 Nov 1;73:781–795.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan PW. An introduction to usability. London: CRC Press; 1998. p. 140.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson SE, Hancock-Beaulieu MM. On the evaluation of IR systems. Inf Process Manag. 1992;28:457–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen J, Molich R. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Paper presented at: CHI ‘90: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM; 1990. p. 249–256.
   Google Scholar
• Brinck T, Gergle D, Wood SD. Usability for the web. Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson C. User experience re-mastered. Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen J. Usability engineering. San Diego: Morgan Kaufmann; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Dumas JS, Fox JE. Usability testing: current practice and future directions. In: Sears A, Jacko JA, editors. The human computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications. 2nd ed. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Teddlie C, Tashakkori A. Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles: Sage; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Kensing F, Munk-Madsen A. PD: structure in the toolbox. Commun ACM. 1993;36:78–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeffries R, Miller JR, Wharton C, Uyeda K. User interface evaluation in the real world: a comparison of four techniques. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM; 1991. p. 119–124.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman A. Social research methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: OUP Oxford; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Malterud K. Fokusgrupper Som Forskningsmetode for Medisin Og Helsefag. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg L, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Everyday technology use questionnaire: psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of competence in technology use. OTJR Occup Particip Health. 2009;29:52–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haak M, Slaug B, Oswald F, et al. Cross-national user priorities for housing provision and accessibility: findings from the European innovage project. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12:2670–2686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helle T, Iwarsson S, Lunn TB, Iversen MH, Jonsson O, Mårtensson K, et al. Combining apps targeting professionals and senior citizens to improve housing accessibility and influence housing provision policies. In: Sik-Lányi C, Hoogerwerf E-J, Miesenberger K, Cudd P, editors. Assistive Technology: 13th European Conference on the Advancement of Assistive Technology. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2015. p. 300–305.
   Google Scholar
• Murdoch T, Detsky A. The inevitable application of big data to health care. JAMA. 2013;309:1351–1352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar