Explore the vast range of titles available.

Worldwide, there has been a growth in service user involvement in education and research in recent years. This handbook is the first book which identifies what is happening in different regions of the world to provide different countries and client groups with the opportunity to learn from each other. The book is divided into five sections: Section One examines service user involvement in context exploring theoretical issues which underpin service user involvement. In Section Two we focus on the state of service user involvement in human services education and research across the globe including examples of innovative practice, but also identifying examples of where it is not happening and why. Section Three offers more detailed examination of such involvement in a wide range of professional education learning settings. Section Four focuses on the involvement of service users in research involving a wide range of service user groups and situations. Lastly, Section Five explores future challenges for education and research to ensure involvement remains meaningful. The book includes forty-eight chapters, including seventeen case-studies, from all regions of the world, this is the first book to both highlight the subject’s methodological and theoretical issues and give practical examples in education and research for those wishing to engage in this field. It will be of interest to all service users, scholars and students of social work, nursing, occupational therapy, and other human service subjects.

How can we ensure high-quality public services such as health care and education? Governments spend huge amounts of public money on public services such as health, education, and social care, and yet the services that are actually delivered are often low quality, inefficiently run, unresponsive to their users, and inequitable in their distribution. In this book, Julian Le Grand argues that the best solution is to offer choice to users and to encourage competition among providers. Le Grand has just completed a period as policy advisor working within the British government at the highest levels, and from this he has gained evidence to support his earlier theoretical work and has experienced the political reality of putting public policy theory into practice. He examines four ways of delivering public services: trust; targets and performance management; \"voice\"; and choice and competition. He argues that, although all of these have their merits, in most situations policies that rely on extending choice and competition among providers have the most potential for delivering high-quality, efficient, responsive, and equitable services. But it is important that the relevant policies be appropriately designed, and this book provides a detailed discussion of the principal features that these policies should have in the context of health care and education. It concludes with a discussion of the politics of choice.

Abstract Human-centered design is about understanding human needs and how design can respond to these needs. With its systemic humane approach and creativity, human-centered design can play an essential role in dealing with today’s care challenges. ‘Design’ refers to both the process of designing and the outcome of that process, which includes physical products, services, procedures, strategies and policies. In this article, we address the three key characteristics of human-centered design, focusing on its implementation in health care: (1) developing an understanding of people and their needs; (2) engaging stakeholders from early on and throughout the design process; (3) adopting a systems approach by systematically addressing interactions between the micro-, meso- and macro-levels of sociotechnical care systems, and the transition from individual interests to collective interests.

The technical enablers for mobile augmented reality (MAR) are becoming robust enough to allow the development of MAR services that are truly valuable for consumers. Such services would provide a novel interface to the ubiquitous digital information in the physical world, hence serving in great variety of contexts and everyday human activities. To ensure the acceptance and success of future MAR services, their development should be based on knowledge about potential end users’ expectations and requirements. We conducted 16 semi-structured interview sessions with 28 participants in shopping centres, which can be considered as a fruitful context for MAR services. We aimed to elicit new knowledge about (1) the characteristics of the expected user experience and (2) central user requirements related to MAR in such a context. From a pragmatic viewpoint, the participants expected MAR services to catalyse their sense of efficiency, empower them with novel context-sensitive and proactive functionalities and raise their awareness of the information related to their surroundings with an intuitive interface. Emotionally, MAR services were expected to offer stimulating and pleasant experiences, such as playfulness, inspiration, liveliness, collectivity and surprise. The user experience categories and user requirements that were identified can serve as targets for the design of user experience of future MAR services.

Background Limited attention has been paid to how and why older adults choose to engage with technology-facilitated health care (e-health), and the factors that impact on this. This scoping review sought to address this gap. Methods Databases were searched for papers reporting on the use of e-health services by older adults, defined as being aged 60 years or older, with specific reference to barriers and facilitators to e-health use. Result 14 papers were included and synthesised into five thematic categories and related subthemes. Results are discussed with reference to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology2. The most prevalent barriers to e-health engagement were a lack of self-efficacy, knowledge, support, functionality, and information provision about the benefits of e-health for older adults. Key facilitators were active engagement of the target end users in the design and delivery of e-health programs, support for overcoming concerns privacy and enhancing self-efficacy in the use of technology, and integration of e-health programs across health services to accommodate the multi-morbidity with which older adults typically present. Conclusion E-health offers a potential solution to overcome the barriers faced by older adults to access timely, effective, and acceptable health care for physical and mental health. However, unless the barriers and facilitators identified in this review are addressed, this potential will not be realised.

As the quality of online health information remains questionable, there is a pressing need to understand how consumers evaluate this information. Past reviews identified content-, source-, and individual-related factors that influence consumer judgment in this area. However, systematic knowledge concerning the evaluation process, that is, why and how these factors influence the evaluation behavior, is lacking. This review aims (1) to identify criteria (rules that reflect notions of value and worth) that consumers use to evaluate the quality of online health information and the indicators (properties of information objects to which criteria are applied to form judgments) they use to support the evaluation in order to achieve a better understanding of the process of information quality evaluation and (2) to explicate the relationship between indicators and criteria to provide clear guidelines for designers of consumer health information systems. A systematic literature search was performed in seven digital reference databases including Medicine, Psychology, Communication, and Library and Information Science to identify empirical studies that report how consumers directly and explicitly describe their evaluation of online health information quality. Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. A qualitative content analysis was performed to identify quality evaluation criteria, indicators, and their relationships. We identified 25 criteria and 165 indicators. The most widely reported criteria used by consumers were trustworthiness, expertise, and objectivity. The indicators were related to source, content, and design. Among them, 114 were positive indicators (entailing positive quality judgments), 35 were negative indicators (entailing negative judgments), and 16 indicators had both positive and negative quality influence, depending on contextual factors (eg, source and individual differences) and criteria applied. The most widely reported indicators were site owners/sponsors; consensus among multiple sources; characteristics of writing and language; advertisements; content authorship; and interface design. Consumer evaluation of online health information is a complex cost-benefit analysis process that involves the use of a wide range of criteria and a much wider range of quality indicators. There are commonalities in the use of criteria across user groups and source types, but the differences are hard to ignore. Evidently, consumers' health information evaluation can be characterized as highly subjective and contextualized, and sometimes, misinformed. These findings invite more research into how different user groups evaluate different types of online sources and a personalized approach to educate users about evaluating online health information quality.

Human-centered design (HCD) is widely regarded as the best design approach for creating eHealth innovations that align with end users’ needs, wishes, and context and has the potential to impact health care. However, critical reflections on applying HCD within the context of eHealth are lacking. Applying a critical eye to the use of HCD approaches within eHealth, we present and discuss 9 limitations that the current practices of HCD in eHealth innovation often carry. The limitations identified range from limited reach and bias to narrow contextual and temporal focus. Design teams should carefully consider if, how, and when they should involve end users and other stakeholders in the design process and how they can combine their insights with existing knowledge and design skills. Finally, we discuss how a more critical perspective on using HCD in eHealth innovation can move the field forward and offer 3 directions of inspiration to improve our design practices: value-sensitive design, citizen science, and more-than-human design. Although value-sensitive design approaches offer a solution to some of the biased or limited views of traditional HCD approaches, combining a citizen science approach with design inspiration and imagining new futures could widen our view on eHealth innovation. Finally, a more-than-human design approach will allow eHealth solutions to care for both people and the environment. These directions can be seen as starting points that invite and support the field of eHealth innovation to do better and to try and develop more inclusive, fair, and valuable eHealth innovations that will have an impact on health and care.

Whereas current literature emphasizes the positive consequences of co-creation, this article sheds light on potential risks of co-created services. Specifically, we examine the implications of customer co-creation in service failure episodes. The results of four experimental studies show that in a failure case, services high on co-creation generate a greater negative disconfirmation with the expected service outcome than services low on co-creation. Moreover, we examine the effectiveness of different service recovery strategies to restore customer satisfaction after failed co-created services. According to our results, companies should follow a matching strategy by mirroring the level of customer participation in service recovery based on the level of co-creation during service delivery. In particular, flawed co-creation promotes internal failure attribution which in turn enhances perceived guilt. Our results suggest that in such case customer satisfaction is best restored by offering co-created service recovery.

The personalization of conversational agents with natural language user interfaces is seeing increasing use in health care applications, shaping the content, structure, or purpose of the dialogue between humans and conversational agents. The goal of this systematic review was to understand the ways in which personalization has been used with conversational agents in health care and characterize the methods of its implementation. We searched on PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and ACM Digital Library using a predefined search strategy. The studies were included if they: (1) were primary research studies that focused on consumers, caregivers, or health care professionals; (2) involved a conversational agent with an unconstrained natural language interface; (3) tested the system with human subjects; and (4) implemented personalization features. The search found 1958 publications. After abstract and full-text screening, 13 studies were included in the review. Common examples of personalized content included feedback, daily health reports, alerts, warnings, and recommendations. The personalization features were implemented without a theoretical framework of customization and with limited evaluation of its impact. While conversational agents with personalization features were reported to improve user satisfaction, user engagement and dialogue quality, the role of personalization in improving health outcomes was not assessed directly. Most of the studies in our review implemented the personalization features without theoretical or evidence-based support for them and did not leverage the recent developments in other domains of personalization. Future research could incorporate personalization as a distinct design factor with a more careful consideration of its impact on health outcomes and its implications on patient safety, privacy, and decision-making.

Background Billions of dollars are lost annually in health research that fails to create meaningful benefits for patients. Engaging in research co-design – the meaningful involvement of end-users in research – may help address this research waste. This rapid overview of reviews addressed three related questions, namely (1) what approaches to research co-design exist in health settings? (2) What activities do these research co-design approaches involve? (3) What do we know about the effectiveness of existing research co-design approaches? The review focused on the study planning phase of research, defined as the point up to which the research question and study design are finalised. Methods Reviews of research co-design were systematically identified using a rapid overview of reviews approach (PROSPERO: CRD42019123034). The search strategy encompassed three academic databases, three grey literature databases, and a hand-search of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement . Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction and resolved disagreements through discussion. Disputes were resolved through discussion with a senior author (PB). One reviewer performed quality assessment. The results were narratively synthesised. Results A total of 26 records (reporting on 23 reviews) met the inclusion criteria. Reviews varied widely in their application of ‘research co-design’ and their application contexts, scope and theoretical foci. The research co-design approaches identified involved interactions with end-users outside of study planning, such as recruitment and dissemination. Activities involved in research co-design included focus groups, interviews and surveys. The effectiveness of research co-design has rarely been evaluated empirically or experimentally; however, qualitative exploration has described the positive and negative outcomes associated with co-design. The research provided many recommendations for conducting research co-design, including training participating end-users in research skills, having regular communication between researchers and end-users, setting clear end-user expectations, and assigning set roles to all parties involved in co-design. Conclusions Research co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved and better evaluation.