More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

A Comprehensive Approach to Decision Aids Supporting Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Rehabilitation

Authors:

Cindel Bonneux,

Gustavo Rovelo,

Karin ConinxAuthors Info & Claims

PervasiveHealth'19: Proceedings of the 13th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare

Pages 389 - 398

https://doi.org/10.1145/3329189.3329241

Published: 20 May 2019 Publication History

Abstract

In recent years, patients' interest in taking control of their own health and rehabilitation has grown. Shared decision making (SDM) advocates for the involvement of patients in making preference-sensitive decisions about their health and care. Optimal support for patients' and healthcare professionals' participation in the SDM process builds on effective, comprehensive tools revealing available evidence and encouraging patient preference elicitation. Moreover, these tools can guide them through the SDM process and offer support during follow-up. Digital tools that facilitate SDM mainly focus on supporting patients when making major decisions. Educating patients about their options, while highlighting their associated benefits and risks, and fostering collaboration and discussion in the encounter are essential components in these tools. Nevertheless, it is important to give patients the support they need when making decisions with less impact at home and empower them to become active participants in their daily care. In the context of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), these levels of decision making are apparent. In this paper, we propose a framework of levels of decision making and a timeline for tools supporting shared decision making in CR. Furthermore, a categorization of SDM tools is presented. These contributions guide researchers aiming to empower patients, and keeping patients engaged and motivated throughout the CR program to make lifestyle changes.

References

[1]

Ronald D. Adelman, Michele G. Greene, and Rita Charon. 1987. The physician-elderly patient-companion triad in the medical encounter: The development of a conceptual framework and research agenda. The Gerontologist 27, 6 (1987), 729--734.

[2]

Srinath Adusumalli, Polina Ferd, Sarah Murray, Rathnam Venkat, Douglas Jacoby, and Emil deGoma. 2016. Development of a Novel Electronic Preventative Cardiology Decision Aid. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 9, suppl_2 (2016), A143--A143.

[3]

Larry A. Allen, Lynne W. Stevenson, Kathleen L. Grady, Nathan E. Goldstein, Daniel D. Matlock, Robert M. Arnold, Nancy R. Cook, G. Michael Felker, Gary S. Francis, Paul J. Hauptman, Edward P. Havranek, Harlan M. Krumholz, Donna Mancini, Barbara Riegel, and John A. Spertus. 2012. Decision making in advanced heart failure: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 125, 15 (2012), 1928--1952.

[4]

Analee E. Beisecker. 1988. Aging and the desire for information and input in medical decisions: patient consumerism in medical encounters. The Gerontologist 28, 3 (1988), 330--335.

[5]

Donald M. Berwick. 2002. A user's manual for the IOM's 'Quality Chasm' report. Health affairs 21, 3 (2002), 80--90.

[6]

Andrew D. Beswick, Karen Rees, Ingolf Griebsch, Fiona C. Taylor, Margaret Burke, Robert R. West, Jackie Victory, Jacqueline Brown, Rod S. Taylor, and Shah Ebrahim. 2004. Provision, uptake and cost of cardiac rehabilitation programmes: improving services to under-represented groups. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 8, 41 (2004), iii--iv, ix--x, 1--152.

[7]

Andrew D. Beswick, Karen Rees, Robert R. West, Fiona C. Taylor, Margaret Burke, Ingolf Griebsch, Rod S. Taylor, Jackie Victory, Jacqueline Brown, and Shah Ebrahim. 2005. Improving uptake and adherence in cardiac rehabilitation: literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 49, 5 (2005), 538--555.

[8]

Birna Bjarnason-Wehrens, Hannah McGee, Ann-Dorthe Zwisler, Massimo F. Piepoli, Werner Benzer, Jean-Paul Schmid, Paul Dendale, Nana-Goar V. Pogosova, Dumitru Zdrenghea, Josef Niebauer, and Miguel Mendes. 2010. Cardiac rehabilitation in Europe: results from the European Cardiac Rehabilitation Inventory Survey. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation 17, 4 (2010), 410--418.

[9]

Todd M. Brown, Adrian F. Hernandez, Vera Bittner, Christopher P. Cannon, Gray Ellrodt, Li Liang, Eric D. Peterson, Ileana L. Piña, Monika M. Safford, and Gregg C. Fonarow. 2009. Predictors of Cardiac Rehabilitation Referral in Coronary Artery Disease Patients: Findings From the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines Program. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 54, 6 (2009), 515--521.

[10]

Joseph J. Carlson, Jeffrey A.Johnson, Barry A.Franklin, and Ronald L. VanderLaan. 2000. Program participation, exercise adherence, cardiovascular outcomes, and program cost of traditional versus modified cardiac rehabilitation. American journal of Cardiology 86, 1 (2000), 17--23.

[11]

Alexander M. Clark, Kathryn M. King-Shier, David R. Thompson, Melisa A. Spaling, Amanda S. Duncan, James A. Stone, Susan B. Jaglal, and Jan E. Angus. 2012. A qualitative systematic review of influences on attendance at cardiac rehabilitation programs after referral. American Heart Journal 164, 6 (2012), 835--845.e2.

[12]

Marla L. Clayman and Megan A. Morris. 2013. Patients in context: Recognizing the companion as part of a patient-centered team. Patient education and counseling 91, 1 (2013), 1--2.

[13]

Ottawa Heart Institute Research Corporation. 2019. E-health Intervention for Cardiac Rehabilitation (VCRP-RCT). Retrieved February 18, 2019 from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03696446

[14]

Ahmed Fadhil and Silvia Gabrielli. 2017. Addressing Challenges in Promoting Healthy Lifestyles: The Al-chatbot Approach. In Proceedings of the 11th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 261--265.

Digital Library

[15]

Ines Frederix, Francesca Solmi, Massimo F. Piepoli, and Paul Dendale. 2017. Cardiac telerehabilitation: a novel cost-efficient care delivery strategy that can induce long-term health benefits. European journal of preventive cardiology 24, 16 (2017), 1708--1717.

[16]

Rick Goud, Nicolette F. de Keizer, Gerben ter Riet, Jeremy C. Wyatt, Arie Hasman, Irene M. Hellemans, and Niels Peek. 2009. Effect of guideline based computerised decision support on decision making of multidisciplinary teams: cluster randomised trial in cardiac rehabilitation. Bmj 338 (2009), b1440.

[17]

Ian Graham, Gerasimos Filippatos, Dan Atar, Panos E. Vardas, Fausto J. Pinto, and Donna Fitzsimons. 2017. Patient engagement. European Heart Journal 38, 42 (2017), 3114--3115.

[18]

Michelle Griffith, Linda Siminerio, Tammie Payne, and Jodi Krall. 2016. A shared decision-making approach to telemedicine: engaging rural patients in glycemic management. Journal of clinical medicine 5, 11 (2016), 103.

[19]

Dominique Hansen, Paul Dendale, Karin Coninx, Luc Vanhees, Massimo F. Piepoli, Josef Niebauer, Veronique Cornelissen, Roberto Pedretti, Eva Geurts, Gustavo R. Ruiz, Ugo Corrà, Jean-Paul Schmid, Eugenio Greco, Constantinos H. Davos, Frank Edelmann, Ana Abreu, Bernhard Rauch, Marco Ambrosetti, Simona S. Braga, Olga Barna, Paul Beckers, Maurizio Bussotti, Robert Fagard, Pompilio Faggiano, Esteban Garcia-Porrero, Evangelia Kouidi, Michel Lamotte, Daniel Neunhäuserer, Rona Reibis, Martijn A. Spruit, Christoph Stettler, Tim Takken, Cajsa Tonoli, Carlo Vigorito, Heinz Völler, and Patrick Doherty. 2017. The European Association of Preventive Cardiology Exercise Prescription in Everyday Practice and Rehabilitative Training (EXPERT) tool: A digital training and decision support system for optimized exercise prescription in cardiovascular disease. Concept, definitions and construction methodology. European journal of preventive cardiology 24, 10 (2017), 1017--1031.

[20]

Marie R. Haug and Marcia G. Ory. 1987. Issues in elderly patient-provider interactions. Research on Aging 9, 1 (1987), 3--44.

[21]

Healthwise. 2018. High Blood Pressure: Should I Take Medicine? Retrieved February 18, 2019 from https://www.healthwise.net/ohridecisionaid/Content/StdDocument.aspx?DOCHWID=zx1768

[22]

Healthwise. 2018. Statins: Should I Take Them to Prevent a Heart Attack or Stroke? Retrieved February 18, 2019 from https://www.healthwise.net/ohridecisionaid/Content/StdDocument.aspx?DOCHWID=aa44406

[23]

Erik P. Hess, Megan Coylewright, Dominick L. Frosch, and Nilay D. Shah. 2014. Implementation of shared decision making in cardiovascular care past, present, and future. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 7, 5 (2014), 797--803.

[24]

Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. 2019. Alphabetical List of Decision Aids by Health Topic. Retrieved March 11, 2019 from https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/AZlist.html

[25]

Lesley A. Jones, Audrey J. Weymiller, Nilay Shah, Sandra C. Bryant, Teresa J. H. Christianson, Gordon H. Guyatt, Amiram Gafni, Steven A. Smith, and Victor M. Montori. 2009. Should Clinicians Deliver Decision Aids? Further Exploration of the Statin Choice Randomized Trial Results. Medical Decision Making 29, 4 (2009), 468--474.

[26]

Natalie Joseph-Williams, Glyn Elwyn, and Adrian Edwards. 2014. Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient education and counseling 94, 3 (2014), 291--309.

[27]

Alexander A. Kon. 2010. The shared decision-making continuum. Jama 304, 8 (2010), 903--904.

[28]

Tanja Krones, Heidemarie Keller, Andreas Sönnichsen, Eva-Maria Sadowski, Erika Baum, Karl Wegscheider, Justine Rochon, and Norbert Donner-Banzhoff. 2008. Absolute cardiovascular disease risk and shared decision making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. The Annals of Family Medicine 6, 3 (2008), 218--227.

[29]

Rebekah C. Laidsaar-Powell, Phyllis N. Butow, Stella Bu, Cathy Charles, Amiram Gafni, Wendy W.T. Lam, Jesse Jansen, Kirsten J. McCaffery, Heather L. Shepherd, Martin H.N. Tattersall, and Ilona Juraskova. 2013. Physician-patient-companion communication and decision-making: a systematic review of triadic medical consultations. Patient education and counseling 91, 1 (2013), 3--13.

[30]

Kristopher Lamore, Lucile Montalescot, and Aurélie Untas. 2017. Treatment decision-making in chronic diseases: what are the family members' roles, needs and attitudes? A systematic review. Patient education and counseling 100, 12 (2017), 2172--2181.

[31]

Warner M. Mampuya. 2012. Cardiac rehabilitation past, present and future: an overview. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2, 1 (2012), 38--49.

[32]

Pignone Michael, Stacey L. Sheridan, Yueh Z. Lee, Johnny Kuo, Christopher Phillips, Cynthia Mulrow, and Roni Zeiger. 2004. Heart to Heart: A Computerized Decision Aid for Assessment of Coronary Heart Disease Risk and the Impact of Risk-Reduction Interventions for Primary Prevention. Preventive cardiology 7, 1 (2004), 26--33.

[33]

Manesh R. Patel, Gregory J. Dehmer, John W. Hirshfeld, Peter K. Smith, and John A. Spertus. 2009. ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 appropriateness criteria for coronary revascularization: a report by the American college of cardiology foundation appropriateness criteria task force, society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions, society of thoracic surgeons, American association for thoracic surgery, American heart association, and the American society of nuclear cardiology endorsed by the American society of echocardiography, the heart failure society of America, and the society of cardiovascular computed tomography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 53, 6 (2009), 530--553.

[34]

Massimo F. Piepoli, Ugo Corrà, Stamatis Adamopoulos, Werner Benzer, Birna Bjarnason-Wehrens, Margaret Cupples, Paul Dendale, Patrick Doherty, Dan Gaita, Stefan Höfer, Hannah McGee, Miguel Mendes, Josef Niebauer, Nana Pogosova, Esteban Garcia-Porrero, Bernhard Rauch, Jean Paul Schmid, and Pantaleo Giannuzzi. 2014. Secondary prevention in the clinical management of patients with cardiovascular diseases. Core components, standards and outcome measures for referral and delivery: a policy statement from the cardiac rehabilitation section of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation. Endorsed by the Committee for Practice Guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. European journal of preventive cardiology 21, 6 (2014), 664--681.

[35]

Cornelia M. Ruland. 2002. Handheld technology to improve patient care: evaluating a support system for preference-based care planning at the bedside. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 9, 2 (2002), 192--201.

[36]

Supraja Sankaran, Cindel Bonneux, Paul Dendale, and Karin Coninx. 2018. Bridging patients' needs and caregivers' perspectives to tailor information provisioning during cardiac rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the 32nd International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference. BCS Learning & Development Ltd., 49.

Digital Library

[37]

Supraja Sankaran, Ines Frederix, Mieke Haesen, Paul Dendale, Kris Luyten, and Karin Coninx. 2016. A Grounded Approach for Applying Behavior Change Techniques in Mobile Cardiac Tele-Rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PETRA '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 63, 8 pages.

Digital Library

[38]

Kerseri Scane, David Alter, Paul Oh, and Dina Brooks. 2012. Adherence to a cardiac rehabilitation home program model of care: a comparison to a well-established traditional on-site supervised program. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism 37, 2 (2012), 206--213.

[39]

L. Aubree Shay and Jennifer Elston Lafata. 2015. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Medical Decision Making 35, 1 (2015), 114--131.

[40]

Stacey L. Sheridan, Lindy B. Draeger, Michael P. Pignone, Thomas C. Keyserling, Ross J. Simpson, Barbara Rimer, Shrikant I. Bangdiwala, Jianwen Cai, and Ziya Gizlice.2011. A randomized trial of an intervention to improve use and adherence to effective coronary heart disease prevention strategies. BMC health services research 11, 1 (2011), 331.

[41]

Stacey L. Sheridan, Russell P. Harris, Steven H. Woolf, and Shared Decision-Making Workgroup of the US Preventive Services Task Force. 2004. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention: a suggested approach from the US Preventive Services Task Force. American journal of preventive medicine 26, 1 (2004), 56--66.

[42]

Dawn Stacey, France Légaré, Krystina Lewis, Michael J. Barry, Carol L. Bennett, Karen B. Eden, Margaret Holmes-Rovner, Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas, Anne Lyddiatt, Richard Thomson, and Lyndal Trevena. 2017. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 4 (2017).

[43]

Ben van Steenkiste, Trudy van der Weijden, Henri E.J.H. Stoffers, Arnold D.M. Kester, Danielle R.M. Timmermans, and Richard Grol. 2007. Improving cardiovascular risk management: a randomized, controlled trial on the effect of a decision support tool for patients and physicians. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation 14, 1 (2007), 44--50.

[44]

Anne M. Stiggelbout, Arwen H. Pieterse, and Johanna C.J.M. De Haes. 2015. Shared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice. Patient education and counseling 98, 10 (2015), 1172--1179.

[45]

Anne M. Stiggelbout, Trudy Van der Weijden, Maarten P.T. De Wit, Dominick Frosch, France Légaré, Victor M. Montori, Lyndal Trevena, and Glenn Elwyn. 2012. Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare. BMJ 344 (2012), 28--31.

[46]

Karam I. Turk-Adawi, Neil B. Oldridge, Sergey S. Tarima, William B. Stason, and Donald S. Shepard. 2013. Cardiac Rehabilitation Patient and Organizational Factors: What Keeps Patients in Programs? Journal of the American Heart Association 2, 5 (2013).

[47]

Marieke G.M. Weernink, Sarah I.M. Janus, Janine A. Van Til, Dennis W. Raisch, Jeannette G. Van Manen, and Maarten J. IJzerman. 2014. A systematic review to identify the use of preference elicitation methods in healthcare decision making. Pharmaceutical medicine 28, 4 (2014), 175--185.

[48]

John E. Wennberg, Elliott S. Fisher, and Jonathan S. Skinner. 2003. Geography and the debate over medicare reform. Health Affairs (2003), W96.

Cited By

Guo ZZeng SLing KChen SYao TLi HXu LZhu X(2024)Experiences and needs of older patients with stroke in China involved in rehabilitation decision-making: a qualitative studyBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making10.1186/s12911-024-02735-524:1Online publication date: 6-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02735-5
Oewel BAzizan NArean PAgapie E(2024)Technology's Role in Fostering Therapist-Client Collaboration and Engagement with GoalsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36870558:CSCW2(1-28)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687055
Habets WScherrenberg MBonneux CRamakers WHansen DDendale PConinx K(2023)Design and Initial Evaluation of Technology-Supported Shared Decision Making for Secondary Prevention in Cardiac Patients in the CoroPrevention ProjectInformation and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health10.1007/978-3-031-37496-8_19(362-384)Online publication date: 14-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37496-8_19
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

A Comprehensive Approach to Decision Aids Supporting Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Rehabilitation
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing
    1. Collaborative and social computing theory, concepts and paradigms
      1. Computer supported cooperative work
  2. Human computer interaction (HCI)

Recommendations

Medical Shared Decision Making with a Virtual Agent
IVA '18: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process in which patients and clinicians work together to make medical decisions based on clinical evidence that balances risks and expected outcomes with patient preferences and values. SDM has been advocated as the ...
Developing, implementing, and evaluating decision support systems for shared decision making in patient care: a conceptual model and case illustration

The importance of including patient preferences in decisions regarding their care has received increased emphasis over recent years. Medical informatics can play an important role in improving patient-centered care by developing decision support systems ...
Theory-Informed Design Guidelines for Shared Decision Making Tools for Health Behaviour Change
Persuasive Technology
Abstract
Recently, the design and development of persuasive applications to support behaviour change in healthcare have gained interest. However, achieving sustained behaviour change remains challenging. Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

PervasiveHealth'19: Proceedings of the 13th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare

May 2019

475 pages

ISBN:9781450361262

DOI:10.1145/3329189

General Chairs:
Oscar Mayora
Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Italy
,
Stefano Forti
Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Italy
,
Program Chairs:
Jochen Meyer,
Lena Mamykina

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

In-Cooperation

EAI: The European Alliance for Innovation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 20 May 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

BOF of Hasselt University

Conference

PervasiveHealth'19

PervasiveHealth'19: The 13th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare

May 20 - 23, 2019

Trento, Italy

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 55 of 116 submissions, 47%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

9
Total Citations
View Citations
255
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)40
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

Reflects downloads up to 16 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Guo ZZeng SLing KChen SYao TLi HXu LZhu X(2024)Experiences and needs of older patients with stroke in China involved in rehabilitation decision-making: a qualitative studyBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making10.1186/s12911-024-02735-524:1Online publication date: 6-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02735-5
Oewel BAzizan NArean PAgapie E(2024)Technology's Role in Fostering Therapist-Client Collaboration and Engagement with GoalsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36870558:CSCW2(1-28)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687055
Habets WScherrenberg MBonneux CRamakers WHansen DDendale PConinx K(2023)Design and Initial Evaluation of Technology-Supported Shared Decision Making for Secondary Prevention in Cardiac Patients in the CoroPrevention ProjectInformation and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health10.1007/978-3-031-37496-8_19(362-384)Online publication date: 14-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37496-8_19
Bovo RGiunchi DAlebri MSteed ACostanza EHeinis T(2022)Cone of Vision as a Behavioural Cue for VR CollaborationProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35556156:CSCW2(1-27)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555615
Haldar SStudd HWong NMohr DReddy MMiller E(2022)Collaboration Challenges and Technology Opportunities at the Intersection of Perinatal and Mental Health JourneysProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35556146:CSCW2(1-28)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555614
Hadi Mogavi RZhang YHaq EWu YHui PMa X(2022)What Do Users Think of Promotional Gamification Schemes? A Qualitative Case Study in a Question Answering WebsiteProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35551246:CSCW2(1-34)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555124
Zhang BHaimson OThomas M(2022)The Chinese Diaspora and The Attempted WeChat Ban: Platform Precarity, Anticipated Impacts, and Infrastructural MigrationProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35551226:CSCW2(1-29)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555122
Goyal NKivlichan IRosen RVasserman L(2022)Is Your Toxicity My Toxicity? Exploring the Impact of Rater Identity on Toxicity AnnotationProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35550886:CSCW2(1-28)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555088
Dissanayake NZahedi MJayatilaka ABabar M(2022)Why, How and Where of Delays in Software Security Patch Management: An Empirical Investigation in the Healthcare SectorProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35550876:CSCW2(1-29)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555087

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents