Integrating Prescriptions into Calendars: Design Considerations
Keywords: Visualization, Visualization design and evaluation methods, Calendar Design, Medication Adherence, Prescription Schedules
TL;DR: A paper presenting design considerations for integration of prescription management into calendars.
Abstract: Optimizing the adherence to medical prescriptions remains an ongoing challenge in our health care systems. Among the many reasons for non-adherence (including socioeconomic status) are forgetfulness and the need to manage dynamically evolving busy lives. Electronic medication reminder apps have become broadly available to aid this situation. However, these apps are rarely integrated with other tools used for managing day to day activities, e.g., general electronic calendars. In this paper, we investigate the design of calendars that can also be used for managing medical prescriptions. The proposed designs include mechanisms for visualizing medication entries and communicating attributes related to medication prescriptions. The designs also include ways of annotating conflicts arising from scheduling of medication entries that violate temporal constraints specified in the prescriptions. A user study was conducted to evaluate the calendar designs. The results indicate potential benefits and considerations for utilizing calendars to manage prescriptions.
Track: HCI/visualization
Summary Of Changes: We thank the reviewers for their feedback and suggestions. We carefully went through the points raised by the meta-reviewer as well as the other reviews and made changes to the paper accordingly. Although all these changes were minor, we believe the quality of the manuscript has improved and we want to thank the reviewers for helping us with this.
Below we detail the exact changes we made. The reviewer's comments is prefixed with [Reviewer]. The changes we made are prefixed with [Change]
[Reviewer] The source of the three usability requirements used in the study should be described.
[Changes] In Section 3.2, we have added for each of the requirements references to relevant literature that we used to draw the requirement from.
[Reviewer] There should be more details about the ideation sessions, e.g., how long each session lasted, what materials (pen and paper?) were used? Etc.
[Changes] We added details about the ideation session at the very beginning of the subsection “Ideation Session”.
[Reviewer] The inclusion/exclusion criterion for participant recruitment that “who considered themselves to have a reasonably busy schedule” needs to be elaborated on how the busyness was measured.
[Changes] We added in the Participants subsection a sentence that explains that although participants self-selected and we did not question their perceived business, the frequency at which they used a calendar was a proxy for us to measure this.
[Reviewer] There should be justifications for using only one color for all other events and how the findings may be different if multiple colors are used for different kinds of events (as often used, e.g., in Google calendars).
[Changes] This point has been clarified in the discussion section. We also stressed this point at the end of the limitations subsection.
[Reviewer] Would the level of details for routine/long-term and new/short-term medications be different and how?
[Changes] This point has been clarified under Section 3. The level of detail is the same. The only difference is the duration indicated by the prescription.
[Reviewer] Section 6.1 should be shortened given the lack of statistical testing.
[Changes] We agree and have shortened Section 6.1 significantly (cut ~half a page). This was mostly achieved by removing the numerical information from the text that was redundant with the data in Figures 6 and 7. This results in less emphasis on quantitative results and more emphasis on qualitative results.
[Reviewer] The first sentence of the conclusion should be adjusted since the study has not shown that the designs allow for “easy management of mediation prescriptions”.
[Changes] The statement has been adjusted. The word “Easy” has been removed. The statement has been revised to communicate that calendars can be designed that support medication prescriptions.
[Reviewer] Findings such as “Results indicate that calendars can be designed… “ and “conflicts arising from unsafe rescheduling can be rendered” are both too vague, thus should be elaborated.
[Changes] The statements have been elaborated upon. They now communicate that it is possible to design calendars that people would adopt to manage their prescriptions; and that such calendars can also be designed to communicate violations of behavior specified in the prescriptions.
[Reviewer] Figure 6 and in Figure 7 should be revised to make them easier for visually comparing the different designs.
[Changes] We have changed the design for Figure 6 to highlight trends to which we wish to draw the attention of the reader. The new design makes it easier to visually compare different designs where there is a change in performance.
[Reviewer] The results and the discussion sections are long with redundant content. Both need to be streamlined while highlighting those instrumental to the redesign.
[Changes] We addressed this point by streamlining the discussion. Instead of reminding the results we now focus on the design goals that derive from the discussion of the results. This shortened the paper by ~half a page.
[Reviewer] The authors should proofread the paper carefully to make sure no missing data.
[Changes] The paper has been proofread and all typos have been fixed.
[Reviewer] Three references were recommended to be included in the paper:
[Changes] The three suggested references are now discussed in the paper.
4 Replies
Loading