Ambivalence in digital health: Co-designing an mHealth platform for HIV care

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

In reaction to polarised views on the benefits or drawbacks of digital health, the notion of ‘ambivalence’ has recently been proposed as a means to grasp the nuances and complexities at play when digital technologies are embedded within practices of care. This article responds to this proposal by demonstrating how ambivalence can work as a reflexive approach to evaluate the potential implications of digital health. We first outline current theoretical advances in sociology and organisation science and define ambivalence as a relational and multidimensional concept that can increase reflexivity within innovation processes. We then introduce our empirical case and highlight how we engaged with the HIV community to facilitate a co-design space where 97 patients (across five European clinical sites: Antwerp, Barcelona, Brighton, Lisbon, Zagreb) were encouraged to lay out their approaches, imaginations and anticipations towards a prospective mHealth platform for HIV care. Our analysis shows how patients navigated ambivalence within three dimensions of digital health: quantification, connectivity and instantaneity. We provide examples of how potential tensions arising through remote access to quantified data, new connections with care providers or instant health alerts were distinctly approached alongside embodied conditions (e.g. undetectable viral load) and embedded socio-material environments (such as stigma or unemployment). We conclude that ambivalence can counterbalance fatalistic and optimistic accounts of technology and can support social scientists in taking-up their critical role within the configuration of digital health interventions.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)133-141
Number of pages9
JournalSocial Science & Medicine
Volume215
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 6 Sep 2018

Fingerprint

ambivalence
health
reflexivity
quantification
social scientist
unemployment
sociology
innovation
science
community

Keywords

  • Digital health
  • Sociological ambivalence
  • Sociotechnical practices
  • Participatory design
  • Self-care
  • Healthcare technology
  • HIV care
  • Digital sociology

Cite this

@article{522374214ee34f4f86b39c5748bd2902,
title = "Ambivalence in digital health: Co-designing an mHealth platform for HIV care",
abstract = "In reaction to polarised views on the benefits or drawbacks of digital health, the notion of ‘ambivalence’ has recently been proposed as a means to grasp the nuances and complexities at play when digital technologies are embedded within practices of care. This article responds to this proposal by demonstrating how ambivalence can work as a reflexive approach to evaluate the potential implications of digital health. We first outline current theoretical advances in sociology and organisation science and define ambivalence as a relational and multidimensional concept that can increase reflexivity within innovation processes. We then introduce our empirical case and highlight how we engaged with the HIV community to facilitate a co-design space where 97 patients (across five European clinical sites: Antwerp, Barcelona, Brighton, Lisbon, Zagreb) were encouraged to lay out their approaches, imaginations and anticipations towards a prospective mHealth platform for HIV care. Our analysis shows how patients navigated ambivalence within three dimensions of digital health: quantification, connectivity and instantaneity. We provide examples of how potential tensions arising through remote access to quantified data, new connections with care providers or instant health alerts were distinctly approached alongside embodied conditions (e.g. undetectable viral load) and embedded socio-material environments (such as stigma or unemployment). We conclude that ambivalence can counterbalance fatalistic and optimistic accounts of technology and can support social scientists in taking-up their critical role within the configuration of digital health interventions.",
keywords = "Digital health, Sociological ambivalence, Sociotechnical practices, Participatory design, Self-care, Healthcare technology, HIV care, Digital sociology",
author = "Benjamin Marent and Flis Henwood and Mary Darking",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.003",
language = "English",
volume = "215",
pages = "133--141",

}

Ambivalence in digital health : Co-designing an mHealth platform for HIV care. / Marent, Benjamin; Henwood, Flis; Darking, Mary.

Vol. 215, 06.09.2018, p. 133-141.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ambivalence in digital health

T2 - Co-designing an mHealth platform for HIV care

AU - Marent, Benjamin

AU - Henwood, Flis

AU - Darking, Mary

PY - 2018/9/6

Y1 - 2018/9/6

N2 - In reaction to polarised views on the benefits or drawbacks of digital health, the notion of ‘ambivalence’ has recently been proposed as a means to grasp the nuances and complexities at play when digital technologies are embedded within practices of care. This article responds to this proposal by demonstrating how ambivalence can work as a reflexive approach to evaluate the potential implications of digital health. We first outline current theoretical advances in sociology and organisation science and define ambivalence as a relational and multidimensional concept that can increase reflexivity within innovation processes. We then introduce our empirical case and highlight how we engaged with the HIV community to facilitate a co-design space where 97 patients (across five European clinical sites: Antwerp, Barcelona, Brighton, Lisbon, Zagreb) were encouraged to lay out their approaches, imaginations and anticipations towards a prospective mHealth platform for HIV care. Our analysis shows how patients navigated ambivalence within three dimensions of digital health: quantification, connectivity and instantaneity. We provide examples of how potential tensions arising through remote access to quantified data, new connections with care providers or instant health alerts were distinctly approached alongside embodied conditions (e.g. undetectable viral load) and embedded socio-material environments (such as stigma or unemployment). We conclude that ambivalence can counterbalance fatalistic and optimistic accounts of technology and can support social scientists in taking-up their critical role within the configuration of digital health interventions.

AB - In reaction to polarised views on the benefits or drawbacks of digital health, the notion of ‘ambivalence’ has recently been proposed as a means to grasp the nuances and complexities at play when digital technologies are embedded within practices of care. This article responds to this proposal by demonstrating how ambivalence can work as a reflexive approach to evaluate the potential implications of digital health. We first outline current theoretical advances in sociology and organisation science and define ambivalence as a relational and multidimensional concept that can increase reflexivity within innovation processes. We then introduce our empirical case and highlight how we engaged with the HIV community to facilitate a co-design space where 97 patients (across five European clinical sites: Antwerp, Barcelona, Brighton, Lisbon, Zagreb) were encouraged to lay out their approaches, imaginations and anticipations towards a prospective mHealth platform for HIV care. Our analysis shows how patients navigated ambivalence within three dimensions of digital health: quantification, connectivity and instantaneity. We provide examples of how potential tensions arising through remote access to quantified data, new connections with care providers or instant health alerts were distinctly approached alongside embodied conditions (e.g. undetectable viral load) and embedded socio-material environments (such as stigma or unemployment). We conclude that ambivalence can counterbalance fatalistic and optimistic accounts of technology and can support social scientists in taking-up their critical role within the configuration of digital health interventions.

KW - Digital health

KW - Sociological ambivalence

KW - Sociotechnical practices

KW - Participatory design

KW - Self-care

KW - Healthcare technology

KW - HIV care

KW - Digital sociology

U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.003

DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.003

M3 - Article

VL - 215

SP - 133

EP - 141

ER -