User participation in healthcare IT development: a developers' viewpoint in Finland.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent research showed that physicians in Finland were highly critical of their information technology (IT) systems. They were also critical of the methods of collaboration with the developers of the health IT systems (HITS) in use at the time of the questionnaire. This study turned the set-up around and asked systems developers the same questions about collaboration. What is developers' view on end user participation in HITS development at the moment? How would developers wish end users to participate in systems development? Do the developers' views differ from the physicians' (end users') views of the current state of collaboration in developing IT systems? METHODS: A web-based questionnaire study was conducted in one of the major HITS provider companies in Finland among all developers, including software developers and customer support and sales personnel. Both quantitative and free-text questions of a previous study were adapted for the purpose. The responses were analyzed with qualitative and basic quantitative methods. RESULTS: The response rate of the questionnaire was 37% and 136 responses were received. The developers who responded were experienced workers; 81% of the respondents had 6 years or more of work experience in IT systems development and 35% of them had 6 years or more of work experience in the healthcare domain. Almost three-quarters (72%) of the respondents agreed with the statement 'I work with users'. Almost all the developers (90%) thought that they are interested in user feedback and also 81% thought that they take the end users' opinions and experiences into account when developing software. A majority of the developers (57%) considered that corrections and modifications are currently not implemented quickly enough. The most popular means of user participation were that 'users would present their work and needs related to it in their workplace' (76%), followed by user groups (75%). The developers suggested many traditional user-centered and usability design methods, too. The developers' views were compared to the views of the physicians who primarily used the case company's products. The views were in direct opposition on whether developers are interested in end users' views (90% of the developers agreed, vs. 60% of the physicians disagreed) and take them into account (81% of the developers agreed, vs. 63% of the physicians disagreed), as well as on user groups (favored by 75% of the developers vs. 14% of the physicians). The majority of the respondents, both developers (57%) and physicians (74%), were dissatisfied with the pace of implementation of corrections and modifications. CONCLUSIONS: Both physicians and developers seem to be "willing but not able" to collaborate with each other. Possible reasons for the differences in views include the fact that there is no return channel of communication on what happened to the end users' feedback, and that developers collaborate with customer representatives who are not end users. It is obvious that there are one or more spots along the route between the "end developers" and end users where there is a breakdown of the information flow.

How to co-develop services, work, and information systems in healthcare: the daisy approach.

Information systems in healthcare need to be designed and developed in a collaborative way. However, existing collaborative methodologies for the parallel development of healthcare work and information systems are vague and fragmented. Furthermore, they neither address people-centred healthcare nor limited-resource contexts. In this paper we introduce an emerging holistic approach, based on a unifying theoretical basis, for co-developing the services, work and information systems in healthcare. The approach intends to (a) be collaborative in nature; (b) address the domains of both healthcare professionals and ordinary people / communities; (c) span the main analysis and design tasks of socio-technical information systems development from needs assessment through requirements setting to functional-architectural solutions; (d) be contextually sensitive; and (e) be practicable in "real life" beyond research settings.