Health  Vol.6 No.15 , August 2014
Studying Design and Use of Healthcare Technologies in Interaction: The Social Learning Perspective in a Dutch Quality Improvement Collaborative Program
Abstract: Designing technologies is a process that relies on multiple interactions between design and use contexts. These interactions are essential to the development and establishment of technologies. This article seeks to understand the attempts of healthcare organisations to integrate use contexts into the design of healthcare technologies following insights of the theoretical approaches of social learning and user representations. We present a multiple case study of three healthcare technologies involved in improving elderly care practice. These cases were part of a Dutch quality improvement collaborative program, which urged that development of these technologies was not “just” development, but should occur in close collaboration with other parts of the collaborative program, which were more focused on implementation. These cases illustrate different ways to develop technologies in interaction with use contexts and users. Despite the infrastructure of the collaborative program, interactions were not without problems. We conclude by arguing that interactions between design and use are not naturally occurring phenomena, but must be actively organised in order to create effects.
Cite this paper: van Loon, E. , Oudshoorn, N. and Bal, R. (2014) Studying Design and Use of Healthcare Technologies in Interaction: The Social Learning Perspective in a Dutch Quality Improvement Collaborative Program. Health, 6, 1903-1918. doi: 10.4236/health.2014.615223.

[1]   Bijker, W.E. (1992) The Social Construction of Fluorscent Lighting, or How an Artifact Was Invented in Its Diffusion Stage. In: Bijker, W.E. and Law, J., Eds., Shaping Technology Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnical Change, The MIT Press, Cambridge/London, 75-102.

[2]   von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing Innovation: The Evolving Phenomenon of User Innovation. Journal für Betrieb-swirtschaft, 55, 63-78.

[3]   Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J. and Heath, C. (2000) Workplace Studies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

[4]   Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. (2003) How Users Matter. The Co-Construction of Users and Technology. The MIT Press, Cambridge/London.

[5]   Peine, A. and Herrmann, A.M. (2012) The Sources of Use Knowledge: Towards Integrating the Dynamics of Technology Use and Design in the Articulation of Societal Challenges. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 79, 1495-1512.

[6]   Silverstone, R. and Haddon, L. (1996) Design and the Domestication of ICTs: Technical Change and Everyday Life. In: Silverstone, R. and Mansell, R., Eds., Communicating by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 44-74.

[7]   Boon, W. (2008) Demanding Dynamics. Demand Articulation of Intermediary Organisations in Emerging Pharmaceutical Innovations. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht.

[8]   Hyysalo, S. (2007) Versions of Care Technology. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 3, 228-247.

[9]   Hyysalo, S. (2010) Health Technology Development and Use. From Practice-Bound Imagination to Evolving Impacts. Routledge, New York/London.

[10]   Stewart, J. and Williams, R. (2005) The Wrong Trousers? Beyond the Design Fallacy: Social Learning and the User. In: Howcroft, D. and Trauth, E.M., Eds., Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research. Theory and Application, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham/Camberley/Northampton, 195-222.

[11]   Zuiderent-Jerak, T., Strating, M., Nieboer, A. and Bal, R. (2009) Sociological Refigurations of Patient Safety; Ontologies of Improvement and “Acting with” Quality Collaboratives in Healthcare. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 1713-1721.

[12]   Strating, M.M., Nieboer, A.P., Zuiderent-Jerak, T. and Bal, R.A. (2011) Creating Effective Quality-Improvement Collaboratives: A Multiple Case Study. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20, 344-350.

[13]   Woolgar, S. (1991) Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials. In: Law, J., Ed., A Sociology of Monsters. Essays on Power Technology and Domination, Routledge, London, 58-102.

[14]   Mackay, H., Carne, C., Beynon-Davies, P. and Tudhope, D. (2000) Reconfiguring the User: Using Rapid Application Development. Social Studies of Science, 30, 737-757.

[15]   Akrich, M. (1992) Beyond Social Construction of Technology: The Shaping of People and Things in the Innovation Proces. In: Dierkes, M. and Hoffmann, U., Eds., New Technology at the Outset. Social Forces in the Shaping of Technological Innovations, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/New York, 173-190.

[16]   Akrich, M. (1997) The Description of Technical Objects. In: Bijker, W.E. and Law, J., Eds., Shaping Technologies/ Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnical Change, The MIT Press, Cambridge/London, 205-224.

[17]   Akrich, M. (1995) User Representations: Practices, Methods and Sociology. In: Rip, A., Misa, T.J. and Schot, J., Eds., Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, Pinter Publisher, London/ New York, 167-184.

[18]   Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E. and Stienstra, M. (2004) Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29, 30-63.

[19]   Berg, A.-J. and Lie, M. (1995) Feminism and Constructivism: Do Artifacts Have Gender? Science, Technology & Human Values, 20, 332-351.

[20]   Neven, L. (2010) But Obviously Not for Me: Robots, Laboratories and the Defiant Identity of Elder Test Users. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32, 335-347.

[21]   Arrow, K.J. (1962) The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29, 155-173.

[22]   Rosenberg, N. (1994) Exploring the Black Box. Technology, Economics, and History (Cambridge). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

[23]   Strating, M., Zuiderent-Jerak, T., Nieboer, A.P. and Bal, R. (2008) Evaluating the Care for Better Collaborative. Results of the First Year of Evaluation. Institute of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, 1-132.

[24]   Stoopendaal, A. and Bal, R. (2013) Conferences, Tablecloths and Cupboards: How to Understand the Situatedness of Quality Improvements in Long-Term Care. Social Science & Medicine, 78, 78-85.

[25]   Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) (2003) The Breakthrough Series IHI’s Collaborative Model for Achieving Breakthrough Improvement. IHI Innovation Series white paper, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, Boston, 1-20.

[26]   Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. 4th Edition, The Free Press, New York.

[27]   van Loon, E. and Zuiderent-Jerak, T. (2011) Framing Reflexivity in Quality Improvement Devices in the Care for Older People. Health Care Analysis, 20, 119-138.

[28]   Timmermans, S., Bowker, G.C. and Leigh Star, S. (1998) The Architecture of Difference: Visibility, Control, and Comparability in Building Nursing Interventions Classification. In: Berg, M. and Mol, A., Eds., Difference in Medicine: Unraveling Practices, Techniques, and Bodies, Duke University Press, Durham, 202-225.

[29]   Verenso (2008) Richtlijn Probleemgedrag met herzienemedicatieparagraaf. Verenso, Utrecht.

[30]   Timmermans, S. and Berg, M. (2003) The Practice of Medical Technology. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25, 97-114.

[31]   van Loon, E., Zuiderent-Jerak, T. and Bal, R. (2014) Diagnostic Work through Evidence-Based Guidelines: Avoiding Gaps between Development and Implementation of a Guideline for Problem Behaviour in Elderly Care. Science as Culture, 23, 153-176.