Author: Åsa Cajander (Page 1 of 7)

Digital vård växer snabbt. Samtidigt förändras arbetsmiljön för vårdpersonal, och en fråga som fått allt mer uppmärksamhet är hot och trakasserier i digitala vårdmöten.

I forskningsprojektet DIGI-RISK studerar vi hur sådana risker uppstår och hur de kan förebyggas. Nyligen började Sofia Thunberg som postdoktor i projektet. Vi ställde några frågor för att lära känna henne och höra mer om hennes arbete.

Kan du kort presentera dig själv och din forskningsbakgrund?

Jag är doktor i kognitionsvetenskap och har en bakgrund inom människa-datorinteraktion med särskilt fokus på ny teknik i olika vårdsammanhang. Bland annat har jag forskat kring införandet av välfärdsteknik inom äldrevården, sociala robotar som psykosocialt stöd för äldre med demens på omsorgsboenden och barn med autism inom specialisttandvården, användningen av generativ AI inom primärvården samt medicintransporter med drönare. Något jag tidigt intresserade mig för var hur vårdpersonalen påverkas i sitt arbete av att ny teknik införs och jag har bland annat tittat på förekomsten av technostress.

Vad gjorde att du ville arbeta i DIGI-RISK-projektet?

Hot och trakasserier inom vården är ett stort och välkänt arbetsmiljöproblem som möjliggörs på ett nytt sätt via den digitala tekniken. Användningen av digitala vårdmöten är idag utbredd medan forskningen kring dess konsekvenser på arbetsmiljön ligger efter. Jag tycker det är spännande med ett projekt som undersöker ett sådant nytt forskningsområde och som också är väldigt relevant ur ett svenskt perspektiv.

Vad kommer du främst att arbeta med i projektet?

Mitt huvudfokus ligger på att utforma en nationell enkät där ett delmål är att validera ett nytt enkätinstrument för att mäta förekomsten och intensiteten av hot och trakasserier i digitala vårdmöten. 

Vad hoppas du att forskningen ska bidra med framöver?

Jag hoppas att projektet kommer leda till ett ökat fokus på vikten av ett aktivt arbetsmiljöarbete för användningen av digitala vårdmöten och att vårdanställda kan känna sig tryggare på sin arbetsplats. 

In a recent study, Anna Kharko, Josefin Hagström, Saija Simola, Åsa Cajander, Charlotte Blease, and Maria Hägglund analyse how gender is associated with patient experiences of electronic health records across Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

Drawing on responses from 27,038 patient portal users, the study shows that women use electronic health records more frequently than men and tend to rate more portal functions as useful.

While positive experiences were reported at similar levels, a higher proportion of women reported very negative experiences. Gender was associated with usefulness ratings for almost all functions, except contact with provider.

How might we interpret this pattern?

One possible explanation is that women generally have more frequent contact with healthcare services. Women also generally have more frequent and diverse interactions with healthcare services across the life course. This may increase both their need for, and engagement with, digital health services. My guess is that higher usage also increases the likelihood of encountering inconsistencies, errors, or confusing documentation, which may help explain why women report more negative experiences.

Another interpretation is that women may take on more caregiving responsibilities and administrative health-related tasks for family members. This could make functions such as error notification and certificate management more salient and valuable. My guess is that women’s broader coordination role in healthcare interactions may shape how they evaluate usefulness.

Overall, the findings suggest that gender is not merely a demographic variable but may reflect differences in health practices, expectations, and responsibilities. As patient portals become more personalized, considering these patterns may support more responsive and inclusive digital health design.

This week we spent two focused and inspiring days at Krusenberg Herrgård, just outside Uppsala, working together on the final steps of the AROA project, funded by AFA försälring. Krusenberg, with its calm surroundings and views over Lake Mälaren, offered an ideal setting for concentrated work, reflection, and discussion.

The environment clearly did its job. Several of us kept working well into the night, some until 01.00, others until 03.00, driven not by deadlines but by an overload of ideas, discussions, and theoretical connections that we simply did not want to interrupt.

The workshop focused on the last phase of AROA: synthesising empirical findings and theory into the project’s final theoretical framework. AROA explores how AI, automation, and robotics at work influence work engagement and socio-technical work dynamics. The project takes a human-centred and socio-technical perspective, aiming to develop a framework that can help identify opportunities for work engagement in AI-supported workplaces. Our discussions revolved around aligning concepts from work engagement research, sociotechnical systems theory, and empirical insights from multiple sectors into a coherent whole.

Participants in the workshop were Maria Normark, Jessica Lindblom, Andreas Bergqvist, and Åsa Cajander.

Alongside long work sessions, there was also time for shared fika, informal conversations, and moments of pause – important ingredients when ideas are being shaped and reshaped.

The Krusenberg days marked a milestone for AROA, and we now move forward with a clear sense that the pieces of the framework are coming together.

This blog post is written by Jana-Sophie Effert, PhD candidate at TU Dortmund University.

A month back home in Germany: time enough to let impressions settle, but not quite enough for them to fade. After three months with Uppsala University’s HTO Research Group, I’m now back here on the blog to reflect on what those weeks have meant for me and my PhD journey. Since everyone at home keeps asking me about my experiences anyway, it feels like the perfect opportunity to bundle and share them here.

First things first: What I miss: The calmness of Swedish everyday life, being surrounded by nature, and that special kind of adventure that comes with living in another country. Further of course: colleagues, cinnamon buns and the HCI environment.

What I’m happy to have back: Of course, there’s comfort in returning home: subsidized student lunch options (no more microwavable meal-prep experiments!), being back in teaching, reconnecting with friends and family: simply enjoying the convenience of familiar surroundings. Yet even here, traces of Sweden remain; small habits and ideas keep resurfacing during daily work.

What I learned (even if it’s really hard to grasp)

1) Networking Across Fields

I was fortunate enough to join several events during my stay – from the DOME meeting on digital medical records and e-health services to national conferences on equal opportunities and social innovation in health. These experiences taught me how valuable spontaneous connections can be: finding overlaps between projects, brainstorming across disciplines, staying up-to-date with neighboring research fields. Networking turned out not just as professional exchange but as genuine inspiration.

2) Teaching From New Perspectives

One highlight was giving two guest lectures within HCI courses: From human-centered to intersectional design, another on work systems – socio-technical aspects of (in)accessible technologies. Sharing insights from rehabilitation sciences while learning how students approach inclusion through an HCI lens was a helpful angle and reminded me how much I like interacting with students‘ perspectives.

3) Feedback and Insights for my PhD Project

My research focuses on technologies supporting people with disabilities in work systems and their transitions into employment. During my stay, I not only had the chance to get feedback on my concrete approach and findings, but I also had the chance for job shadowing at Daglig Verksamhet in Sala. Observing inclusive practices firsthand offered new comparative insights for my project. These experiences helped refine questions about participation and technology use within real work environments.

4) Local Academic Routines

Academic life at Uppsala University left its mark: I participated in regular seminars, open group discussions, collaborative meetings. One thought that stuck with me is seeing this PhD journey again through its original purpose: becoming a “critical thinker,” not just an expert within a narrow niche.

Looking Ahead

Three months were certainly a good enough time to fill my head with thoughts and ideas. Now comes the part where these insights need sorting and weaving into ongoing projects here at TU Dortmund. Some collaborations initiated at UU are already continuing:

• Participation & Accessibility: Together we’re developing a scoping review exploring how people with cognitive accessibility needs experience their involvement in Human-Centered Design or Co-Design activities.
• Sustainability & Accessibility: We’re exchanging perspectives on sustainability and accessibility as value-based features of software development.

One thing is certain: I’m eager to return someday to this wonderful Swedish town, both professionally and personally. To anyone considering spending time with the HTO group: do it! Looking forward to being back, continuing working together and eventually share some joint research results on this blog 😊

A new edited volume from Padova University Press, Why EDI Matters: Equ(al)ity, Diversity and Inclusion in European Universities (2025), brings together contributions from scholars and practitioners across a wide range of European university contexts. Edited by Annalisa Oboe, Věra Sokolová, and Helena Wahlström Henriksson, the book positions EDI not as a “nice-to-have” add-on, but as a core issue for universities’ legitimacy, resilience, and democratic role in society. You find the book here.

Importantly, the book is published under a Diamond Open Access model, with the explicit aim of making current debates and evidence on EDI widely accessible.

How the book is structured

The volume is organised into three sections: education and curriculum; discrimination and violence; and institutional change through policy and practice.

A chapter authored by Åsa Cajander

Åsa Cajander is one of the book’s chapter authors. Her chapter with Beni Suranto, Tony Clear, and Ramesh Lal is titled:

“Overlooked by Design: Challenges and Opportunities of Incorporating Human-Centred Perspectives and EDI in IT Development During the AI Boom.”

The chapter addresses a recurring tension in digital development: technological progress and rapid deployment often outpace inclusive, human-centred practices. It argues that integrating EDI into IT development becomes even more complex in the context of contemporary AI systems, where issues such as bias, opacity, and uneven impacts on marginalised groups are well-documented concerns. The chapter frames “integrating EDI into AI” as a deliberate, end-to-end commitment from data and design decisions to stakeholder engagement and governance rather than a late-stage “ethics checklist.”

Why this collection may be helpful to read

One of the strengths of Why EDI Matters is that it does not treat EDI as purely abstract. Across chapters, the emphasis is on the everyday realities of implementation: what universities actually do, what kinds of resistance or trade-offs arise, how policies land in practice, and what can be learned from concrete cases across national and institutional contexts.

For readers working in higher education leadership, teaching and learning, research management, digitalisation, or workplace environment roles, the book offers a multi-voiced snapshot of where EDI efforts currently stand, and why they remain central to the future of universities.