skip to main content
10.1145/3279778.3279912acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesissConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

SmartSurveys: Does Context Influence Whether We'll Share Healthcare Experience Data with our Smartphone?

Published: 19 November 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Consumer feedback is collected in many industries, including in healthcare where patient feedback contributes to a higher quality of care. Current collection methods include complaints, local surveys, and patient stories, but these methods yield low participation at high costs. Providers need affordable and effective ways to collect feedback, and smartphone applications present as suitable solutions. However, previous research shows that patients are hesitant to provide smartphone-based feedback in a care setting due to perceived risks and apparent futility of expecting change as a result. We will conduct a study to observe consumer behaviour using smartphones to provide service feedback in healthcare spaces versus non-healthcare spaces. We will identify addressable barriers that impact the adoption of smartphone technology to gather patient experience data in health care spaces.

Supplementary Material

ZIP File (isspp25.zip)
This is the poster presentation for SmartSurveys: Do contexts influence whether we'll share healthcare experience data with researchers using our smartphones? for ISS'18.

References

[1]
Christian Aagaard. 2013. New building for Health Services, same central location: Natural light, privacy and space will improve service for students. University of Waterloo: Communications and Public Affairs. Retrieved from uwaterloo.ca/stories/new-building-health-services-same-central-location
[2]
Faraz Ahmed, Jenni Burt, and Martin Roland. 2014. Measuring Patient Experience: Concepts and Methods. PATIENT. 7, 235--241.
[3]
The Canadian Institute of Health Information. 2014. Canadian Patient Experiences Survey-Inpatient Care Procedure Manual, May 2014. The Canadian Institute of Health Information. Retrieved from www.cihi.ca/en/cpes_ic_procedure_20140501 _en.pdf
[4]
Melissa Giesbrecht, Faye Wolse, Valorie A. Crooks, and Kelli Stajduhar. (2015). Identifying socio-environmental factors that facilitate resilience among Canadian palliative family caregivers: a qualitative case study. Palliat Support Care. 13(3), 555--65.
[5]
Geoffrey Miller. 2012. The smartphone psychology manifesto. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7, 221--237.
[6]
Denise Ng. 2017. "I Would Just Want to Know What It's Being Used for and Who's Using It": Barriers to the Adoption of SmartSurveys. UWSpace. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/12119
[7]
Maarja Saar and Hannes Palang. 2009. The Dimensions of Place Meanings. Living Rev. Landscape Res. 3(2009), 3.
[8]
Yi-Fu Tuan. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of experience (Eighth printing, 2001). Minneapolis. MN: The University of Minnesota Press.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ISS '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces
November 2018
499 pages
ISBN:9781450356947
DOI:10.1145/3279778
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 19 November 2018

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. geolocation
  2. healthcare
  3. information systems
  4. meaning creation
  5. patient centred design
  6. service feedback
  7. shared decision making
  8. smartphones

Qualifiers

  • Poster

Funding Sources

  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research

Conference

ISS '18
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

ISS '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 28 of 105 submissions, 27%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 147 of 533 submissions, 28%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 121
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)19
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 07 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media