Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient Education in Orthopedics: the Role of Information Design and User Experience

  • Emerging Trends in Design for Musculoskeletal Medicine (S Goldchmit and M Queiroz, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This narrative review will focus on concepts and methods of Information Design and User Experience for patient education in orthopedics, with osteoarthritis as an application example.

Recent Findings

Information design can make complex health information clear according to the needs of the patients. Digital health presents new opportunities to design scalable educational interventions and may be improved with User Experience Design. Human-centered design methods such as user research, co-design, and prototype testing are being applied in orthopedics to achieve patient-centered care. Current international guidelines on osteoarthritis put patient education as one of the key care strategies. Educational interventions target preoperative education and osteoarthritis self-management, but current models could be enhanced.

Summary

Patient education and health literacy are fundamental to face the burden of musculoskeletal pain. The collaboration between design and health is essential to deal with the demand for education, behavioral, and social change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. World Health Organization. WHO global strategy on people-centred and integrated health services: interim report. 2015. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/155002. Accessed 22 Dec 2020.

  2. Rudd RE. The evolving concept of Health literacy: New directions for health literacy studies. J Commun Healthc. Taylor & Francis. 2015;8:7–9. https://doi.org/10.1179/1753806815Z.000000000105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berkman ND, Davis TC, McCormack L. Health literacy: what is it? J Health Commun. 2010;15(Suppl 2):9–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.499985.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jotterand F, Amodio A, Elger BS. Patient education as empowerment and self-rebiasing. Med Health Care Philos. 2016;19:553–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9702-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Meloncon LK. Patient experience design: expanding usability methodologies for healthcare. Commun Des Q Rev. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. 2017;5:19–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131201.3131203.

  6. Houts PS, Doak CC, Doak LG, Loscalzo MJ. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;61:173–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004.

  7. Frascara J. Information design as principled action: Making information accessible, relevant, understandable, and usable. Champaign, IL: Common Ground Research Networks. 2015. https://doi.org/10.18848/978-1-61229-786-6/CGP.

  8. Eltorai AEM, Sharma P, Wang J, Daniels AH. Most American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons’ online patient education material exceeds average patient reading level. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1181–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4071-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Abraham C. Developing evidence-based content for health promotion materials. Writing health communication: An evidence-based guide. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. 2011;83–98.

  10. Stiff P. Some documents for a history of information design. Information Design Journal + Document Design. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2005;13:211–5.

  11. Waller R. Simple information: researching, teaching, doing. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. 2018;4:143–56 Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872618300054. Accessed 22 Dec 2020.

  12. Hartley J. Eighty ways of improving instructional text. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 1981; p. 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.1981.6447818.

  13. Duffy TM, Waller R, Piccoli A. Designing usable texts. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 1985. p. 47–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpc.1985.6448850.

  14. Schriver KA. Dynamics in document design: creating text for readers. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1997. https://doi.org/10.5555/249331.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Carliner S, Verckens JP, de Waele C. Information and Document Design: Varieties on Recent Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing; 2006. https://doi.org/10.1075/ddcs.7.

  16. Easterby RS. Information design: The design and evaluation of signs and printed material. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 1984.

  17. • Black A, Luna P, Lund O, Walker S. Information design: research and practice. Abingdon: Routledge; 2017. A comprehensive guide to Information Design theories, methods and case studies.

  18. Pontis S. Making sense of field research: a practical guide for information designers. Abingdon: Routledge; 2018.

  19. Pettersson R. Information Design. Document Design Companion Series. 2002. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/ddcs.3

  20. What is Information Design?. International Institute for Information Design. Available from: https://www.iiid.net [cited 2020 Jul 7].

  21. Giacomin J. What is human centred design? The Design Journal. Routledge. 2014;17:606–23. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630614X14056185480186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Waller R. Information design: how the disciplines work together. Götzis: Vision Plus conference, 1995. Available from: https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/simplification/SC14DisciplinesTogether-7.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2020.

  23. Waller R. Graphic literacies for a digital age: the survival of layout. The Information Society. Routledge. 2012;28:236–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2012.689609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hartley J, Abraham C, Kools M. Designing easy-to-read text. Writing health communication: an evidence-based guide. London: Sage; 2012. p. 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wright P. Using graphics effectively in text. Writing health communication: an evidence-based guide. London: Sage; 2011. p. 63–82.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Garrett JJ. The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond. 2nd ed. Berkeley: New Riders, 2011.

  27. Tosei F. Design for Ergonomics, Springer Series in Design and Innovation 2. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33562-5.

  28. • Hassenzahl M. The Thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe M, Monk A, editors. Funology 2: From Usability to Enjoyment. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 301–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68213-6_19. A proposed model with elements of User Experience.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Bannon L. Reimagining HCI: toward a more human-centered perspective. Interactions. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. 2011. p. 50. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978822.1978833.

  30. Wright P, Blythe M, McCarthy J. User Experience and the idea of design in HCI. Interactive systems design, specification, and verification. Berlin: Springer; 2006. p. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/11752707_1.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Iso ISO. 9241-11. Ergonomics of human-system interaction—part 11: usability: definitions and concepts. International Organization for Standardization. 2018;2018:9241.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bevan N, Carter J, Earthy J, Geis T, Harker S. New ISO standards for usability, usability reports and usability measures. Human-Computer Interaction Theory, Design, Development and Practice. Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 268–78. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39510-4_25

  33. Good MD, Whiteside JA, Wixon DR, Jones SJ. Building a user-derived interface. Commun ACM. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. 1984;27:1032–43. https://doi.org/10.1145/358274.358284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Nielsen J. A 100-year view of user experience. Nielsen Norman Group Available online: https://www nngroup com/articles/100-years-ux/(accessed on 21 February 2020). 2017;

  35. Norman DA. Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books, 2005.

  36. Norman DA. The design of everyday things: revised and expanded. New York: Basic Civitas Books, 2013.

  37. Hunter DJ, Bierma-Zeinstra S. Osteoarthritis. Lancet. 2019;393:1745–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30417-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bannuru RR, Osani MC, Vaysbrot EE, Arden NK, Bennell K, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, et al. OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019;27:1578–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2019.06.011.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kolasinski SL, Neogi T, Hochberg MC, Oatis C, Guyatt G, Block J, et al. 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation guideline for the management of osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72:220–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.41142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rice D, McNair P, Huysmans E, Letzen J, Finan P. Best evidence rehabilitation for chronic pain Part 5: Osteoarthritis. J Clin Med Res. 2019;8. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8111769.

  41. Kanavaki AM, Rushton A, Efstathiou N, Alrushud A, Klocke R, Abhishek A, et al. Barriers and facilitators of physical activity in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e017042. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017042.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. McDonald S, Page MJ, Beringer K, Wasiak J, Sprowson A. Preoperative education for hip or knee replacement. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 5. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003526.pub3.

  43. Brembo EA, Kapstad H, Van Dulmen S, Eide H. Role of self-efficacy and social support in short-term recovery after total hip replacement: a prospective cohort study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0649-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Chabaud A, Eschalier B, Zullian M, Plan-Paquet A, Aubreton S, Saragaglia D, et al. Mixed qualitative and quantitative approach for validating an information booklet before total hip arthroplasty. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;61:140–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2018.02.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Butler GS, Hurley CA, Buchanan KL, Smith-VanHorne J. Prehospital education: effectiveness with total hip replacement surgery patients. Patient Educ Couns. 1996;29:189–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0738-3991(96)00883-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. • Groeneveld B, Melles M, Vehmeijer S, Mathijssen N, Dekkers T, Goossens R. Developing digital applications for tailored communication in orthopaedics using a Research through Design approach. Digital health. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England; 2019;5:2055207618824919. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2055207618824919. A detailed case study on design methods applied to patient-centred care in orthopedics.

  47. Kennedy D, Wainwright A, Pereira L, Robarts S, Dickson P, Christian J, et al. A qualitative study of patient education needs for hip and knee replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18:413. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1769-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Adibi S. Mobile Health: A Technology Road Map. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12817-7

  49. •• Campbell K, Louie P, Levine B, Gililland J. Using patient engagement platforms in the postoperative management of patients. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020;13:479–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020-09638-8A review on current advancements in eHealth and mHealth applied to patient engagement.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Sjögren Forss K, Stjernberg L, Ekvall Hansson E. Osteoarthritis and fear of physical activity—the effect of patient education. Schumacher U, editor. Cogent Medicine. 2017;4:4. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331205X.2017.1328820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lorig KR, Holman H. Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med. 2003;26:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2601_01.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kroon FPB, van der Burg LRA. Self-management education programmes for osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. cochranelibrary.com; 2014. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008963.pub2/abstract

  53. • Caneiro JP, O’Sullivan PB, Roos EM, Smith AJ, Choong P, Dowsey M, et al. Three steps to changing the narrative about knee osteoarthritis care: a call to action. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:256–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-101328Highlights the critical role of non-surgical OA management approaches.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Arigo D, Jake-Schoffman DE, Wolin K, Beckjord E, Hekler EB, Pagoto SL. The history and future of digital health in the field of behavioral medicine. J Behav Med. Springer. 2019;42:67–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-018-9966-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Morita PP. Design of mobile health technology. Design for Health. 2020. p. 87–102. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-816427-3.00005-1

  56. Dahlberg LE, Dell’Isola A, Lohmander LS, Nero H. Improving osteoarthritis care by digital means - effects of a digital self-management program after 24- or 48-weeks of treatment. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0229783. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229783.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Dahlberg LE, Grahn D, Dahlberg JE, Thorstensson CA. A web-based platform for patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: a pilot study. JMIR Research Protocols. 2016:e115. https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.5665.

  58. Knitza J, Simon D, Lambrecht A, Raab C, Tascilar K, Hagen M, et al. Mobile health usage, preferences, barriers, and eHealth literacy in rheumatology: patient survey study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8:e19661. https://doi.org/10.2196/19661.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Design Department, School of Architecture and Urbanism, University of Sao Paulo, Rua do Lago 876 Butantã, São Paulo, SP, 05508-080, Brazil

    Sara Miriam Goldchmit

  2. Hip Group, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Santa Casa de Sao Paulo School of Medical Sciences, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Marcelo Cavalheiro de Queiroz, Walter Ricioli Junior & Giancarlo Cavalli Polesello

  3. Department of Rehabilitation Science, Human Motion Analysis Laboratory, Universidade Nove de Julho—UNINOVE, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Nayra Deise dos Anjos Rabelo

Authors
  1. Sara Miriam Goldchmit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcelo Cavalheiro de Queiroz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nayra Deise dos Anjos Rabelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Walter Ricioli Junior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giancarlo Cavalli Polesello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Miriam Goldchmit.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Sara Miriam Goldchmit, Marcelo Cavalheiro de Queiroz, Nayra Deise dos Anjos Rabelo, Walter Ricioli Junior, and Giancarlo Cavalli Polesello declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Emerging Trends in Design for Musculoskeletal Medicine

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goldchmit, S.M., de Queiroz, M.C., dos Anjos Rabelo, N.D. et al. Patient Education in Orthopedics: the Role of Information Design and User Experience. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 14, 9–15 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020-09683-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020-09683-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation