Greetings!

For the third day session, we began reviewing our homework from the previous day. From this I was able to learn how to manipulate ShareLaTeX in new ways. I have a better understanding of how to improve my design by using different keywords/commands. After reviewing our biographies that we created through ShareLaTeX, we had a session dealing with Qualitative Analysis which can be very dynamic, and often uncovers certain trends. I learned that code in QA does not mean program code, but the themes that are found from QA. We also had an in-depth explanation of Needs Assessments like Surveys and Interviews, and how to go about conducting them from Dr. Clawson.

Later in the day we met with Ben Jelen to enjoy two sessions. One involved part 2 of Related Works. The other one we start having a little fun with the Lilypad Arduino. From the related works, we were introduced to relevant journals and conferences for Health and Human Computer Interaction. It would be great to be able to submit to one of the conferences/journals one day. Maybe even after researching this summer! Ben also compared two different ways that he has summarized literature. One was vague, and unorganized while the other was more detailed. He stressed the importance of having enough information in your summary so that you won’t have to go back and read through the paper.

For the Lilypad Arduino session,  we coded a program to make the LEDs blink at certain paces, and eventually used the buzzer, light sensor, and sound sensor too. It was really cool and very satisfying to program the code, and then see the changes that were made in the code show up immediately. I felt pretty accomplished by the end of this session because we had manipulated the Harry Potter song to start playing once our light sensor was covered. It was nice to know that results were there after a good bit of trial and error with trying to run the program.

For the second time this week, I will be doing a summary of a paper. Hopefully this time it will be much better than the first.

See below.

The authors  wanted to assist Older adults with multiple chronic conditions who often have health care transitions with finding a way to manage their personal health conditions. Guidelines are created for PHI &PHAs management system.  Method use: iterative participatory design. They used 3-8 participants per user study. Iterative design of CCT was important to this project. Over 3 study designs were experimented with during this study, The findings suggest participants prefer automated mechanisms with little interaction for basic medication management. Effective guidelines were created based on participants interaction with the prototype. Based on the variety of different studies, and participant input I think that these findings are pretty accurate and efficient considering the goal that was trying to be accomplished. Now that the guidelines are there, the health informatics researchers can test and create better medication management systems. Did this paper help, and has anymore work been done?