Evaluating Digital Peer Support for Children Cured from Cancer

References

• Adams, A., & Cox, A. L. (2008). Questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups. In P. Cairns & A. L. Cox (Eds.), Research methods for human computer interaction (pp. 17–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Aldridge, J. (2012). The participation of vulnerable children in photographic research. Visual Studies, 27 (1), 48–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali, K., Farrer, L., Gulliver, A., & Griffiths, K. M. (2015). Online peer-to-peer support for young people with mental health problems: A systematic review. JMIR Mental Health, 2 (2), e19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Als, B. S., Jensen, J. J., & Skov, M. B. (2005). Comparison of think-aloud and constructive interaction in usability testing with children. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 9–16, Boulder, Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2003). Electronic survey methodology: A case study in reaching hard-to-involve Internet users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16 (2), 185–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baauw, E., & Markopoulous, P. (2004). A comparison of think-aloud and post-task interview for usability testing with children. Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Interaction design and children: building a community, pp. 115–116, Maryland, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Barak, A., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Suler, J. (2008). Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (5), 1867–1883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barendregt, W., & Bekker, M. M. (2005). Development and evaluation of the picture cards method. Proceedings of Interact 2005, Tenth International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction, Rome, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, V. (2007). Online information, extreme communities and internet therapy: Is the internet good for our mental health? Journal of Mental Health, 16 (4), 445–457.
   Google Scholar
• Bers, M. U., Beals, L. M., Chau, C., Satoh, K., Blume, E. D., DeMaso, D. R., & Gonzalez‐Heydrich, J. (2010). Use of a virtual community as a psychosocial support system in pediatric transplantation. Pediatric Transplantation, 14 (2), 261–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bers, M. U., Gonzalez-Heydrich, J., & DeMaso, D. R. (2001). Identity construction environments: Supporting a virtual therapeutic community of pediatric patients undergoing dialysis. Presented at Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, pp. 380–387, Seattle, WA.
   Google Scholar
• Bevan, N. (2008). Classifying and selecting UX and usability measures. International Workshop on Meaningful Measures: Valid Useful User Experience Measurement, 13–18, Reykjavik, Iceland.
   Google Scholar
• Bevan, N., Kirakowski, J., & Maissel, J. (1991). What is usability? Proceedings of HCI International ‘91, Stuttgart, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Borgers, N., De Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development and response quality 1. Bulletin De Methodologie Sociologique, 66 (1), 60–75.
   Google Scholar
• Börjesson, P., Barendregt, W., Eriksson, E., & Torgersson, O. (2015). Designing technology for and with developmentally diverse children: A systematic literature review. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 79–88, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Bratteteig, T., Wagner, I., Morrison, A., Stuedahl, D., & Mörtberg, C. (2010). Research practices in digital design. In I. Wagner, T. Bratteteig, & D. Stuedahl (Eds.), Exploring digital design (pp. 17–54). London, England: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, D. (2009). Case-based methods: Why we need them; what they are; how to do them. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of case-based methods (pp. 1–13). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Colombo, L., & Landoni, M. (2014). A diary study of children’s user experience with EBooks using flow theory as framework. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 135–144, Aarhus, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, A., Reimann, R., & Cronin, D. (2007). About face 3: The essentials of interaction design. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Coulson, N. S., Buchanan, H., & Aubeeluck, A. (2007). Social support in cyberspace: A content analysis of communication within a Huntington’s disease online support group. Patient Education and Counseling, 68 (2), 173–178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darbyshire, P., MacDougall, C., & Schiller, W. (2005). Multiple methods in qualitative research with children: More insight or just more? Qualitative Research, 5 (4), 417–436.
   Google Scholar
• Diefenbach, S., Kolb, N., & Hassenzahl, M. (2014). The ‘hedonic’ in human–computer interaction: History, contributions, and future research directions. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems, pp. 305–314, Vancouver, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Donker, A., & Markopoulos, P. (2002). A comparison of think-aloud, questionnaires and interviews for testing usability with children. Proceedings of HCI ‘02, London, England.
   Google Scholar
• Druin, A. (1999). Cooperative inquiry: Developing new technologies for children with children. Proceedings of CHI, pp. 592–599, Pittsburgh, PA.
   Google Scholar
• Einberg, E.-L., Svedberg, P., Enskär, K., & Nygren, J. M. (2014). Friendship relations from the perspective of children with experience of cancer treatment a focus group study with a salutogenic approach. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 32 (3), 153–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eiser, C. (2007). Beyond survival: Quality of life and follow-up after childhood cancer. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32 (9), 1140–1150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elf, M. (2013). User involvement in designing a web-based support system for young carers–inspiring views and systemic barriers ( PhD Doctoral thesis). University of Gothenburg, Faculty of Social Sciences, Gothenburg, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Elf, M., Rystedt, H., Lundin, J., & Krevers, B. (2012). Young carers as co-designers of a web-based support system–the views of two publics. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 37 (4), 203–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. D., & Kurniawan, S. H. (2000). Increasing the usability of online information for older users: A case study in participatory design. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 12 (2), 263–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enskär, K., & Berterö, C. (2010). Young adult survivors of childhood cancer; experiences affecting self-image, relationships, and present life. Cancer Nursing, 33 (1), E18–E24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giesbers, J., Verdonck-De Leeuw, I., Van Zuuren, F., Kleverlaan, N., & van der Linden, M. (2010). Coping with parental cancer: Web-based peer support in children. Psycho-Oncology, 19 (8), 887–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, A., Powell, M., Taylor, N., Anderson, D., & Fitzgerald, R. (2013). Ethical research involving children. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti.
   Google Scholar
• Gulliksen, J., Göransson, B., Boivie, I., Blomkvist, S., Persson, J., & Cajander, Å. (2003). Key principles for user-centred systems design. Behaviour and Information Technology, 22 (6), 397–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson, G., Kogner, P., & Heyman, M. (2014). Childhood cancer incidence and survival in Sweden 1984–2010—report 2013. In G. Gustafsson, P. Kogner, & M. Heyman (Eds.), The swedish childhood cancer registry. Stockholm, Sweden: Karolinska Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Hanna, L., Risden, K., & Alexander, K. (1997). Guidelines for usability testing with children. Interactions, 4 (5), 9–14.
   Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M. (2010). Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons. San Francisco, CA: Morgan & Claypool.
   Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M., Eckoldt, K., Diefenbach, S., Laschke, M., Len, E., & Kim, J. (2013). Designing moments of meaning and pleasure. Experience design and happiness. International Journal of Design, 7, 21–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience-a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25 (2), 91–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28 (1), 75–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoppe, M. J., Wells, E. A., Morrison, D. M., Gillmore, M. R., & Wilsdon, A. (1995). Using focus groups to discuss sensitive topics with children. Evaluation Review, 19 (1), 102–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iivari, J., Isomäki, H., & Pekkola, S. (2010). The user–the great unknown of systems development: Reasons, forms, challenges, experiences and intellectual contributions of user involvement. Information Systems Journal, 20 (2), 109–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, L. G., & Johnson, J. (2005). Interviewing young children: Explicating our practices and dilemmas. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (6), 821–831.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavanaugh, K., Moro, T. T., Savage, T., & Mehendale, R. (2006). Enacting a theory of caring to recruit and retain vulnerable participants for sensitive research. Research in Nursing & Health, 29 (3), 244–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klemm, P., & Hardie, T. (2002). Depression in Internet and face-to-face cancer support groups: A pilot study. Oncology Nursing Forum, 29 (4), E45–E51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuhn, K. (2000). Problems and benefits of requirements gathering with focus groups: A case study. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 12 (3–4), 309–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22 (1), 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. R. (2014). Usability: Lessons learned… and yet to be learned. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 30 (9), 663–684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liamputtong, P. (2006). Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lindberg, S. (2013). Participatory design workshops with children with cancer: Lessons learned. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 332–335, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Lindberg, S., Thomsen, M., & Åkesson, M. (2014). Ethics in health promoting PD: Designing digital peer support with children cured from cancer. Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference, pp. 91–100, Windhoek, Namibia.
   Google Scholar
• Lindberg, S., Wärnestål, P., Nygren, J., & Svedberg, P. (2014). Designing digital peer support for children: Design patterns for social interaction. Presented at Interaction Design and Children, Aarhus, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Lindgaard, G. (2015). Challenges to assessing usability in the Wild: A case study. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 31 (9), 618–631.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luszczynska, A., Pawlowska, I., Cieslak, R., Knoll, N., & Scholz, U. (2013). Social support and quality of life among lung cancer patients: A systematic review. Psycho-Oncology, 22 (10), 2160–2168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markopoulos, P., & Bekker, M. (2003). On the assessment of usability testing methods for children. Interacting with Computers, 15 (2), 227–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markopoulos, P., Read, J. C., MacFarlane, S., & Hoysniemi, J. (2008). Evaluating children’s interactive products: Principles and practices for interaction designers. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• McGee, M., Rich, A., & Dumas, J. (2004). Understanding the usability construct: User-perceived usbility. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 48 (5), 907–911.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, N., & Kirakowski, J. (2005). Defining usability: Quality of use or quality of experience? Proceedings of the International Professional Communication Conference, pp. 200–204, Limerick, Ireland.
   Google Scholar
• Melling, B., & Houguet-Pincham, T. (2011). Online peer support for individuals with depression: A summary of current research and future considerations. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 34 (3), 252–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melrose, M. (2002). Labour pains: Some considerations on the difficulties of researching juvenile prostitution. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5 (4), 333–351.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, A., Coroiu, A., & Korner, A. (2015). One‐to‐one peer support in cancer care: A review of scholarship published between 2007 and 2014. European Journal of Cancer Care, 24 (3), 299–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, L. W., & Miller, M. (1999). Initiating research with doubly vulnerable populations. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30 (5), 1034–1040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrow, V., & Richards, M. (1996). The ethics of social research with children: An overview. Children & Society, 10 (2), 90–105.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, L. E., Korte, J., & Nielsen, S. (2014). Design with the deaf: Do deaf children need their own approach when designing technology? Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 249–252, Aarhus, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Potts, H. W. (2005). Online support groups: An overlooked resource for patients. He@Lth Information on the Internet, 44 (1), 6–8.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, M. A., & Smith, A. B. (2009). Children’s participation rights in research. Childhood, 16 (1), 124–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Punch, S. (2002). Research with Children: The same or different from research with adults? Childhood, 9 (3), 321–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ragin, C. C. (1992). Introduction: Cases of “What is a case?”. In C. C. Ragin & H. C. Becker (Eds.), What is a case?: Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 1–17). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Read, J., & MacFarlane, S. (2006). Using the fun toolkit and other survey methods to gather opinions in child computer interaction. Presented at Interaction Design and Children, Tampere, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Read, J., MacFarlane, S., & Casey, C. (2002). Endurability, engagement and expectations: Measuring children’s fun. Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction design: Beyond human–computer interaction (3rd ed.). Chischester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Ruland, C. M., Starren, J., & Vatne, T. M. (2008). Participatory design with children in the development of a support system for patient-centered care in pediatric oncology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 41 (4), 624–635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, C. E., & Sendor, R. M. (1999). Helping others helps oneself: Response shift effects in peer support. Social Science & Medicine, 48 (11), 1563–1575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sim, G., & Horton, M. (2012). Investigating children’s opinions of games: fun toolkit vs. this or that. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 70–77, Bremen, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, P. (2004). Peer support/peer provided services underlying processes, benefits, and critical ingredients. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 27 (4), 392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Kesteren, I. E., Bekker, M. M., Vermeeren, A. P., & Lloyd, P. A. (2003). Assessing usability evaluation methods on their effectiveness to elicit verbal comments from children subjects. Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Interaction design and children, pp. 41–49, Lancashire, Preston, England.
   Google Scholar
• Wärnestål, P., & Nygren, J. (2013). Building an experience framework for a digital peer support service for children surviving from cancer. Presented at Interaction Design and Children, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Wärnestål, P., Svedberg, P., & Nygren, J. (2014). Co-constructing child personas for health-promoting services with vulnerable children. Proceedings of CHI, pp. 3767–3776, Toronto, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Webb, M., Burns, J., & Collin, P. (2008). Providing online support for young people with mental health difficulties: Challenges and opportunities explored. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 2 (2), 108–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). London, England: Sage publications.
   Google Scholar