Human technology intermediation to reduce cognitive load: understanding healthcare staff members' practices to facilitate telehealth access in a Federally Qualified Health Center patient population.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate how healthcare staff intermediaries support Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) patients' access to telehealth, how their approaches reflect cognitive load theory (CLT) and determine which approaches FQHC patients find helpful and whether their perceptions suggest cognitive load (CL) reduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semistructured interviews with staff (n = 9) and patients (n = 22) at an FQHC in a Midwestern state. First-cycle coding of interview transcripts was performed inductively to identify helping processes and participants' evaluations of them. Next, these inductive codes were mapped onto deductive codes from CLT. RESULTS: Staff intermediaries used 4 approaches to support access to, and usage of, video visits and patient portals for FQHC patients: (1) shielding patients from cognitive overload; (2) drawing from long-term memory; (3) supporting the development of schemas; and (4) reducing the extraneous load of negative emotions. These approaches could contribute to CL reduction and each was viewed as helpful to at least some patients. For patients, there were beneficial impacts on learning, emotions, and perceptions about the self and technology. Intermediation also resulted in successful visits despite challenges. DISCUSSION: Staff intermediaries made telehealth work for FQHC patients, and emotional support was crucial. Without prior training, staff discovered approaches that aligned with CLT and helped patients access technologies. Future healthcare intermediary interventions may benefit from the application of CLT in their design. Staff providing brief explanations about technical problems and solutions might help patients learn about technologies informally over time. CONCLUSION: CLT can help with developing intermediary approaches for facilitating telehealth access.

Equitable Research PRAXIS: A Framework for Health Informatics Methods.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing attention to health equity in health informatics research. However, the literature lacks a comprehensive framework outlining critical considerations for health informatics research with marginalized groups. METHODS: Literature review and experiences from nine equity-focused health informatics conducted in the United States and Canada. Studies focus on disparities related to age, disability or chronic illness, gender/sex, place of residence (rural/urban), race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: We found four key equity-related methodological considerations. To assist informaticists in addressing equity, we contribute a novel framework to synthesize these four considerations: PRAXIS (Participation and Representation, Appropriate methods and interventions, conteXtualization and structural competence, Investigation of Systematic differences). Participation and representation refers to the necessity for meaningful participation of marginalized groups in research, to elevate the voices of marginalized people, and to represent marginalized people as they are comfortable (e.g., asset-based versus deficit-based). Appropriate methods and interventions mean targeting methods, instruments, and interventions to reach and engage marginalized people. Contextualization and structural competence mean avoiding individualization of systematic disparities and targeting social conditions that (re-)produce inequities. Investigation of systematic differences highlights that experiences of people marginalized according to specific traits differ from those not so marginalized, and thus encourages studying the specificity of these differences and investigating and preventing intervention-generated inequality. We outline guidance for operationalizing these considerations at four research stages. CONCLUSIONS: This framework can assist informaticists in systematically addressing these considerations in their research in four research stages: project initiation; sampling and recruitment; data collection; and data analysis. We encourage others to use these insights from multiple studies to advance health equity in informatics.