[dcchairs2016] Review of UbiComp/ISWC 2016 Doctoral School submission 106

[dcchairs2016 at ubicomp.org]

Paper  106 - Monitoring patients with pain using wearable devices
Reviewer 2 - Max Muhlhauser

Overall rating:  3  (scale is 1..6; 6 is best)

Confidence

   Very confident - I am knowledgeable in the area 

Contribution to UbiComp

   In principle, the work could be very pertinent for UbiComp - however ...
   see below
 

Overall Rating

   3  (Maybe reject: I would agree with rejecting this paper.)

R&R Suitability (hidden from author)

   It would be possible to improve within 5 weeks, but difficult	 

The Review

   The PhD thesis aims at better support for self-reporting in the treatment
   of pain, in particular for elderly people suffering from chronic pain due
   to spine deformity. 
   The author reports that he assessed the application domain (specifics of
   user group addressed, relevant context data etc.), developed
   corresponding models, and developed prototypes (Smartphone app, dedicated
   wrist band) emphasizing a simple “red-orange-green light” metaphor. 
   The work is in its third year. The user and context model are not
   presented in the paper. In particular, it is stated that these models are
   thought as *results* of the PhD rather than part of a “closed loop”
   between users and devices with the aim to achieve improvements for users.
   Therefore, the design of the simple App/Device cannot really be judged
   – in particular, there is no attempt to evaluate achievements towards
   the primary goal: to help patients in their pain situation. An evaluation
   of such a “full loop” would aim at finding out if an app/device was
   truly helping to reach the ultimate goals of better treatment, better
   understanding of factors influencing pain, etc. 
   Rather, the PhD aims at questions that can much more easily be “tuned
   to be successful” with proper study design and some effort: 1.
   “understanding the patients”, 2. “understanding the context”, 3.
   “Proposing interactions”, 4. “Evaluating the UX”. This leaves all
   relevant questions open, such as: is the achieved “better”
   understanding of users and context really helpful for the application
   domain and hence, is it *really* better? Is the app / wristband really
   helpful towards the primary goal? (the best UX is not worth anything if
   the app is not useful). 
   Looking from a UbiComp perspective, too, a *practically relevant* key KPI
   (better life for patients or truly better data / understanding for
   medical research, or similar) would help to assess the value of the
   research work. But as it stands, we have nothing but models that cannot
   be evaluated against their true purpose and quite simple Apps/Devices
   “sold” as achievements. To make the issue with the apps/wearables
   clearer, let me use an exaggerate tone: there is no value in building a
   device with extremely little functionality just based on the obvious
   claim that “the elderly should not be overwhelmed by complexity” when
   the simplifications are all based on simple reductions of functionality
   – this is just if I reduced my Smartphone to a single button that can
   only be used to call my friend, and claimed that I have a great
   achievement in UX/simplicity.
   In the end, the reader is left with a piece of work that might be OK from
   the pure, strict application of scientific methods but does not convince
   in terms of its contribution to the world’s (and Ubicomp’s) problems.
    I find it very hard to imagine advice from the DC panel for improving
   the work without going back and questioning the setup and the evaluation
   goals.  Although the topic is in principle UbiComp-prone, the approach
   misses interesting Ubicomp points that could stir up a fruitful
   discussion at the DC. 
 

Confidential Comments (Optional) (hidden from author)

 


To see the review, go to https://precisionconference.com/~ubicomp?goto=ubicomp16c