[dcchairs2016] UbiComp/ISWC 2016 Doctoral School notification - #106

[dcchairs2016 at ubicomp.org]

Dear Iyubanit Rodríguez,

Please find enclosed the reviews for your submission for the Ubicomp/ISWC 2016 Doctoral School.

106: "Monitoring patients with pain using wearable devices"

Despite not being able to accept your submission at this year's Ubicomp/ISWC Doctoral School, committee members provided guidance and feedback on your submitted paper. We highly encourage you to follow the valuable advices that the committee member entered in their reviews towards improving on your doctoral work.

Thank you for submitting to the UbiComp 2014 Doctoral School.


Max Mühlhäuser
Nadir Weibel
Rene Mayrhofer

UbiComp 2016 Doctoral School Chairs


------------------------ Submission 106, Review 1 ------------------------

Title: Monitoring patients with pain using wearable devices


Confidence

   3  (Very confident - I am knowledgeable in the area)

Contribution to UbiComp

   This work outlines research towards better understanding how to support
   older adults with self-report of pain using wearable technology. 

Overall Rating

   2  (Probably reject: I would argue for rejecting this paper.)

The Review

   The question of how to enable older adults with low digital skills to
   self report pain is important. It is however not clear how this will be
   achieved, as the research plan is too broad and not specific enough.

   It seems that there will be a mix of observations, interviews and
   prototype development, but it is unclear how these will interplay. For
   example, the submission highlights a prototype, but it is not clear how
   this has been developed and how this relates with the rest. The plan
   ahead is similarly unclear, as it does not explain how prototype
   development will be integrated with the rest of the research.

   The overall thesis statement is also very broad and it does not seem to
   have specific activities that will enable the thesis to be developed in
   that direction. A good definition of the original key idea is missing, so
   it is hard to evaluate novelty and specific contributions to the field.

   Although the student is in his third year, and the DC would be beneficial
   in principle at this stage of the career, it seems that the PhD plan is
   still too broad and the path is not specified enough to be able to really
   benefit from the panel help and comments. A more specific plan for the
   different goals highlighted here, and clearly defined hypothesis and how
   to test this would benefit the framing of this research.

   Additional Comments: the paper was submitted using the wrong template and
   did not follow the steps required in the call for papers.


------------------------ Submission 106, Review 2 ------------------------

Title: Monitoring patients with pain using wearable devices


Confidence

   3  (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.)

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.