Search for: All records

Although child participation is required for successful Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) management, it is challenging because the child’s young age and immaturity make it difficult to perform self-care. Thus, parental caregivers are expected to be heavily involved in their child’s everyday illness management. Our study aims to investigate how children and parents collaborate to manage T1D and examine how the children become more independent in their self-management through the support of their parents. Through semi-structured interviews with children with T1D and their parents (N=41), our study showed that children’s knowledge of illness management and motivation for self-care were crucial for their transition towards independence. Based on these two factors, we identified four types of children’s collaboration (i.e., dependent, resistant, eager, and independent) and parents’ strategies for supporting their children’s independence. We suggest design implications for technologies to support collaborative care by improving children’s transition to independent illness management. 

Children with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) face many challenges with keeping their blood glucose levels within a healthy range because they cannot manage their illness by themselves. To prevent children’s blood glucose from becoming too high or too low, parents apply different strategies to avoid risky situations. To understand how parents of children with T1D manage these risks, we conducted semi-structured interviews with children with T1D (ages 6-12) and their parents (N=41). We identified four types of strategies used by parents (i.e., educated guessing game, contingency planning, experimentation, and reaching out for help) that can be categorized according to two dimensions: 1) the cause of risk (known or unknown) and 2) the occurrence of risk (predictable or unpredictable). Based on our findings, we provide design implications for collaborative health technologies that support parents in better planning for contingencies and identifying unknown causes of risks together with their children. 

Clinical documentation is a time-consuming and challenging task, especially in time-critical medical settings. Even with a dedicated scribe person, timely and accurate documentation under time constraints is never easy. In this work, we present a unique type of fast-paced medical team--emergency medical services (EMS)--which has no designated role for documentation while constantly working outside in the field to provide urgent patient care. Through interviews with 13 EMS practitioners, we reveal several interesting and prominent characteristics of EMS documentation practice as well as their associated challenges: EMS practitioners self-organize and collaborate on documentation while in the meantime being both physically and cognitively preoccupied with high-acuity patients, having limited capability to use handheld documentation systems in real-time, and being overwhelmed by strict documentation requirements and regulations. Lastly, we use our findings to discuss both technical and non-technical implications to support timely and collaborative documentation in dynamic medical contexts while accounting for care providers' physical and cognitive constraints in using computing devices. 

Recent arguments claim that behavioral science has focused – to its detriment – on the individual over the system when construing behavioral interventions. In this commentary, we argue that tackling economic inequality using both framings in tandem is invaluable. By studying individuals who have overcome inequality, “positive deviants,” and the system limitations they navigate, we offer potentially greater policy solutions. 

While economic inequality continues to rise within countries, efforts to address it have been largely ineffective, particularly those involving behavioral approaches. It is often implied but not tested that choice patterns among low-income individuals may be a factor impeding behavioral interventions aimed at improving upward economic mobility. To test this, we assessed rates of ten cognitive biases across nearly 5000 participants from 27 countries. Our analyses were primarily focused on 1458 individuals that were either low-income adults or individuals who grew up in disadvantaged households but had above-average financial well-being as adults, known as positive deviants. Using discrete and complex models, we find evidence of no differences within or between groups or countries. We therefore conclude that choices impeded by cognitive biases alone cannot explain why some individuals do not experience upward economic mobility. Policies must combine both behavioral and structural interventions to improve financial well-being across populations.