Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28516171›Full record

ArticleCSCW : proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work2016

Boundary Negotiating Artifacts in Personal Informatics: Patient-Provider Collaboration with Patient-Generated Data.

Chia-Fang Chung, Kristin Dew, Allison Cole, Jasmine Zia, James Fogarty, Julie A Kientz, Sean A Munson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CSCW : proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Exploring Collaboration Breakdowns Between Provider Teams and Patients in Post-Surgery Care.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2026
    Article
  8. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Beyond Detection: Towards Actionable Sensing Research in Clinical Mental Healthcare.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. MigraineTracker: Examining Patient Experiences with Goal-Directed Self-Tracking for a Chronic Health Condition.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Designing Flexible Longitudinal Regimens: Supporting Clinician Planning for Discontinuation of Psychiatric Drugs.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2022
    Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Chia-Fang ChungHuman Centered Design & Engineering, DUB Group, University of Washington.
Kristin DewHuman Centered Design & Engineering, DUB Group, University of Washington.
Allison ColeFamily Medicine, DUB Group, University of Washington.
Jasmine ZiaDivision of Gastroenterology, DUB Group, University of Washington.
James FogartyComputer Science & Engineering, DUB Group, University of Washington.
Julie A KientzHuman Centered Design & Engineering, DUB Group, University of Washington.
Sean A MunsonHuman Centered Design & Engineering, DUB Group, University of Washington.

Funding

Sharing Patient Lifelog Data with the Primary Care Team for Two Patient Populations: Preventative Care & Chronic Disease ManagementR21HS023654 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI MUNSON, SEAN · 2014 to 2015
$297k
AHRQ HHS R21 HS023654
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-generated data is increasingly common in chronic disease care management. Smartphone applications and wearable sensors help patients more easily collect health information. However, current commercial tools often do not effectively support patients and providers in collaboration surrounding these data. This paper examines patient expectations and current collaboration practices around patient-generated data. We survey 211 patients, interview 18 patients, and re-analyze a dataset of 21 provider interviews. We find that collaboration occurs in every stage of self-tracking and that patients and providers create boundary negotiating artifacts to support the collaboration. Building upon current practices with patient-generated data, we use these theories of patient and provider collaboration to analyze misunderstandings and privacy concerns as well as identify opportunities to better support these collaborations. We reflect on the social nature of patient-provider collaboration to suggest future development of the stage-based model of personal informatics and the theory of boundary negotiating artifacts.

Indexed as

ACM Classification Keywords: H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.gboundary negotiating artifactschronic disease managementHCI): Miscellaneouspatient-generated datapatient-provider collaborationPersonal informaticsself-tracking

Identifiers

PMID28516171
PMCPMC5432205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.