Health and medical contexts have emerged as an important area of inquiry for researchers at the intersection of user experience and technical communication. In addressing this intersection, this article advocates and extends patient experience design or PXD (
Melonçon, 2017) as an important framework for user experience research within health and medicine. Specifically, this article presents several PXD insights from a task-based usability study that examined an online intervention program for people with voice problems. We respond to Melonçon's call (
2017) to build PXD as a framework for user experience and technical communication research by describing ways traditional usability methods can provide PXD insights and asking the following question: What insights can emerge from combining traditional usability methods and PXD research? In addressing this question, we outline two primary methodological and practical considerations we found central to conducting PXD research: (1) engaging patients as participants, and (2) leveraging multidisciplinary collaboration.
AlbersM. J. (2004). Communication of complex information: User goals and information needs for dynamic web information. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2.
ArduserL. (2018). Impatient patients: A DIY usability approach in diabetes wearable technologies. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 5(4), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3188387.3188390
3.
ArffaR. E.KrishnaP.Gartner-SchmidtJ.RosenC. A. (2012). Normative values for the voice handicap index-10. Journal of Voice, 26(4), 462–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.04.006
4.
BaldwinJ. L.SinghH.SittigD. F.GiardinaT. D. (2017). Patient portals and health apps: Pitfalls, promises, and what one might learn from the other. Healthcare, 5(3), 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2016.08.004
BarnumC. (2019). Invited essay: The state of UX research. Journal of Usability Studies, 15(1), 1–7.
7.
BeattyA. L.MagnussonS. L.FortneyJ. C.SayreG. G.WhooleyM. A. (2018). VA Fitheart, a mobile app for cardiac rehabilitation: Usability study. JMIR Human Factors, 5(1), e3–e3. https://doi.org/10.2196/humanfactors.8017
8.
BenedekJ.MinerT. (2002). Measuring desirability: New methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting. Proceedings of Usability Professionals Association, 2003(8-12), 57.
9.
BivensK. (2019). Reducing harm by designing discourse and digital tools for opioid users’ contexts: The Chicago recovery alliance’s community-based context of use and PwrdBy’s technology-based context of use. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 7(2), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3358931.3358935
BreuchL.BakkeA.Thomas-PolleiK.MackeyL.WeinertC. (2016). Toward audience involvement: Extending audiences of written physician notes in a hospital setting. Written Communication, 33(4), 418–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316668517
12.
BreuchL.ZachryM.SpinuzziC. (2001). Usability instruction in technical communication programs: New directions in curriculum development. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(2), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/105065190101500204
13.
CardinalA.GonzalesL., & RoseE. (2020, October). Language as participation: Multilingual user experience design. Proceedings of the 38th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 1–7). https://doi.org/10.1145/3380851.3416763
14.
Garrison-JoynerV.CaravellaE. (2020). Lapses in literacy: Cultural accessibility in graphic health communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 29(3), iii–xxv. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2020.1768295
15.
GougeC. C. (2017). Improving patient discharge communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 47(4), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616646749
16.
GrahamS. S.HarleyA.KesslerM. M.RobertsL.DeVastoD.CardD. J., … KimS. Y. (2017). Catalyzing transdisciplinarity: A systems ethnography of cancer–obesity comorbidity and risk coincidence. Qualitative Health Research, 27(6), 877–892. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316656162
17.
HackosJ.RedishJ. (1998). User and task analysis for interface design. John Wiley & Sons.
18.
HarrisP.TaylorR.ThielkeR.PayneJ.GonzalezN.CondeJ. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
19.
HongY.GoldbergD.DahlkeD. V.OryM. G.CargillJ. S.CoughlinR., … PeresS. C. (2014). Testing usability and acceptability of a web application to promote physical activity (iCanFit) among older adults. JMIR Human Factors, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.2196/humanfactors.3787
20.
HoustonT. K.CherringtonA.ColeyH. L.RobinsonK. M.TrobaughJ. A.WilliamsJ. H.FosterP. H.FordD. E.GerberB. S.SchewchukR. M.AllisonJ. J. (2011). The art and science of patient storytelling—harnessing narrative communication for behavioral interventions: the ACCE project. Journal of Health Communication, 16(7), 686–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.551997
21.
HowardT. W. (2015). Accommodationist and constructivist approaches to academic-industry partnerships in a usability and user-experience facility. In BridgefordT.St. AmantK. (Eds.), Academy-industry relationships and partnerships: Perspectives for technical communicators (pp. 157–177). Routledge.
22.
JohnsonR. R. (1998). User-centered technology: A rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts. State University of New York Press.
23.
JohnsonR.SalvoM.ZoeteweyM. (2007). User-centered technology in participatory culture: Two decades “beyond a narrow conception of usability testing.”. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50(4), 320–332. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2007.908730
24.
KuehlR. A.AndersonJ.DruryS. A. M.HolmanA.HuntC.LeighterJ. L. (2020). Creating a multidisciplinary dialogue about community-based participatory research partnerships of health and medicine. Rhetoric of Health & Medicine, 3(1), 93–132. https://doi.org/10.5744/rhm.2020.1004
25.
MalterudK.SiersmaV. D.GuassoraA. D. (2015). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
26.
MayberryL. S.BergC. A.HarperK. J.OsbornC. Y. (2016). The design, usability, and feasibility of a family-focused diabetes self-care support mHealth intervention for diverse, low-income adults with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Research, 2016, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7586385
27.
MelonçonL. (2017). Patient experience design: Expanding usability methodologies for healthcare. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 5(2), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131201.3131203
28.
MirelB. (2004). Interaction design for complex problem-solving: Developing useful and usable software. Elsevier.
Nguyen-FengV. N.FrazierP. A.StocknessA.NarayananA.MeriansA. N.MisonoS. (2020). Web-based perceived present control intervention for voice disorders: A pilot study. Journal of Voice, 34(2), 300.e1–300.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.08.006
31.
NielsenJ. (1993). Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann.
OpelD. S.AbbottC.Hart-DavidsonW. (2018). Toward an encounter team model of clinical project management: A needs analysis of a family health center. Technical Communication, 65(2), 181–193.
34.
PottsL. (2013). Social media in disaster response: How experience architects can build for participation. Routledge.
35.
PottsL.SalvoM. J. (Eds) (2017). Rhetoric and experience architecture. Parlor Press.
36.
RedishG. (2007). Expanding usability testing to evaluate complex systems. Journal of Usability Studies, 2(3), 102–111.
37.
RedishJ. C. (2010). Technical communication and usability: Intertwined strands and mutual influences. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(3), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2010.2052861
38.
RenguetteC. (2016). Technical communication, academic research, and patient education: A multidisciplinary collaboration. Technical Communication, 63(4), 365–374.
39.
RoseE. J. (2016). Design as advocacy: Using a human-centered approach to investigate the needs of vulnerable populations. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(4), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616653494
40.
RoseE.RacadioR. (2017). Testing in translation: Conducting usability studies with transnational users. Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization, 1, 5–26.
41.
RoseE.RacadioR.WongK.NguyenS.KimJ.ZahlerA. (2017). Community-based user experience: Evaluating the usability of health insurance information with immigrant patients. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(2), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2656698
42.
RosenC. A.LeeA. S.OsborneJ.ZulloT.MurryT. (2004). Development and validation of the voice handicap index-10. The Laryngoscope, 114(9), 1549–1556. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200409000-00009
43.
SchriverK. A. (1997). Dynamics in document design. Wiley Computer Pub.
44.
SimmonsW.ZoeteweyM. (2012). Productive usability: Fostering civic engagement and creating more useful online spaces for public deliberation. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(3), 251–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2012.673953
45.
St. AmantK. (2017). The cultural context of care in international communication design: A heuristic for addressing usability in international health and medical communication. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 5(2), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131201.3131207
46.
SullivanP. (2017). Beckon, encounter, experience: The danger of control and the promise of encounters in the study of user experience. In PottsL.SalvoM. J. (Eds.), Rhetoric and experience architecture (pp. 41–57). Parlor Press.
47.
WaltonR.JonesN. (2013). Navigating increasingly cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary, and cross-organizational contexts to support social justice. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 1(4), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/2524248.2524257
48.
ZachryM.SpyridakisJ. (2016). Human-centered design and the field of technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(4), 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616653497
