Supporting Patient-Provider Collaboration toIdentify Individual Triggers using Food and Symptom Journals

Jessica Schroeder1, Jane Hoffswell1, Chia-Fang Chung2, James Fogarty1, Sean Munson2, and Jasmine Zia3

1Computer Science & Engineering, 2Human Centered Design & Engineering, 3Division of GastroenterologyDUB Group, University of Washington

{jesscs, jhoffs, cfchung, jaf1978, smunson, jasmine}@uw.edu

ABSTRACTPatient-generated data can allow patients and providers tocollaboratively develop accurate diagnoses and actionabletreatment plans. Unfortunately, patients and providers oftenlack effective support to make use of such data. We examinepatient-provider collaboration to interpret patient-generateddata. We focus on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a chronicillness in which particular foods can exacerbate symptoms.IBS management often requires patient-provider collaborationusing a patient’s food and symptom journal to identify thepatient’s triggers. We contribute interactive visualizations tosupport exploration of such journals, as well as an examinationof patient-provider collaboration in interpreting the journals.Drawing upon individual and collaborative interviews withpatients and providers, we find that collaborative review helpsimprove data comprehension and build mutual trust. We alsofind a desire to use tools like our interactive visualizationswithin and beyond clinic appointments. We discuss thesefindings and present guidance for the design of future tools.

Author KeywordsPatient-Provider Collaboration; Patient-Generated Data;Self-Tracking; Symptom Triggers; Interactive Visualization

ACM Classification KeywordsH.5.2 Information Interfaces and Presentation: User Interfaces

INTRODUCTIONHealthcare providers often rely on patient data to informdiagnoses and treatment decisions. Such patient data hastraditionally been obtained through verbal summaries frompatients and infrequent clinical data collection (e.g., vital signs,blood tests, overnight sleep studies). However, both patientsand providers are increasingly interested in augmenting thisdata with patient-generated health data (e.g., food journals,physical activity logs, wearable sensor data) [13]. A recentstudy found 69% of U.S. adults report tracking a health factor,with 14% using technology to do so [19]. Because tracking,and its use in clinical care, are expected to continue increasing,Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than theauthor(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, orrepublish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permissionand/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.

CSCW ’17, February 25-March 01, 2017, Portland, OR, USA

© 2017 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.ISBN 978-1-4503-4335-0/17/03. . . $15.00

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998276

many patients and providers believe that patient-generateddata has the potential to capture a more complete, accurate,and longer-term understanding of a patient’s health [11, 12].

Unfortunately, attempts to collaborate using patient-generateddata in a clinical environment often leave both patients andproviders dissatisfied. Many patients who share data with theirproviders report feeling their providers were insufficientlyengaged with the data [18]. Providers in turn encounter amyriad of barriers when attempting to use patient-generateddata to inform diagnoses. For example, commercially availableself-tracking tools (e.g., Fitbit, MyFitnessPal) present datain non-standardized formats and generally lack features forsharing or collaboration [11]. Furthermore, many providersquestion the accuracy of such data, lack the time necessary toanalyze it, or feel unequipped to interpret it [11, 55].

This work examines patient-provider collaboration usingpatient-generated food and symptom journals to identifynutrients that trigger an individual patient’s symptoms. Thispractice is an example of diagnostic self-tracking, which priorresearch in the Quantified Self community has found broadlyimportant but also difficult and error-prone [10]. We focuson irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a chronic illness that oftenrequires sustained patient-provider collaboration to manage.

We contribute two exploratory, interactive visualizationsthat represent different design trade-offs in supportingcollaborative interpretation of patient-generated food andsymptom journals. By applying visualization techniquesto the domain of patient-generated health data, we creatednovel opportunities to help patients and providers discover andexamine trends in the data and identify dietary changes thatmight help the patient manage their symptoms.

We further contribute an examination of patient-providercollaboration in the interpretation of patient-generated datausing exploratory interactive visualizations. We observedand interviewed 10 patients with IBS and 10 providers, bothindividually and in pairs, as they examined the patient’s data inour visualizations. The visualizations allowed the patient andprovider to identify concrete examples in the patient’s data,which helped build understanding and encouraged a dialoguesupported by the expertise of each collaborator, leading tomutual trust in the collaboration. Our findings emphasizethe need for tools for patient-provider collaboration withpatient-generated data to be flexible in their presentation of apatient’s data, provide simple and exploratory environmentsto foster collaboration between collaborators with differentexpertise, and support the development of actionable insights.

RELATED WORKWe review relevant work in the collection and interpretationof patient-generated health data and in data visualization.

Interpreting Patient-Generated Health DataSelf-tracking has become increasingly popular as technologyhas advanced to allow people to track more information andto reduce barriers and burdens in that tracking [28]. However,many self-trackers struggle to find value in their data aftercollecting it. This challenge often stems from a lack of timeor skills needed to analyze the data, as well as a lack ofsuitable analysis or visualization tools to aid interpretation[10, 28]. In Choe et al.’s examination of self-trackerpractices in collecting and exploring personal data, 35% ofself-trackers reported having a health condition [10]. Manywere self-tracking to identify symptom triggers. Although theparticipants were technology-fluent, they often encounteredinsurmountable barriers (e.g., a lack of contextual information,insufficient scientific rigor to form reasonable hypotheses).

One approach to overcoming barriers in interpretingself-tracking data is to seek expert help. Many self-trackersattempt to share their patient-generated data with providers invarious health domains [18, 13, 57]. Providers also commonlyask patients to track and review lifestyle indicators to helpmanage chronic diseases or conditions (e.g., diabetes [1],heart failure [49], IBS [3]). Reviewing this data can helpproviders understand the everyday behavior of patients andprovide better diagnoses or personalized treatments [11].Interpreting such data often requires collaboration betweenthe patient and provider, with the provider contributingmedical expertise while the patient contributes detailedknowledge of their day-to-day life [4]. Prior systems haveenabled such collaboration by helping patients engage in thedecision-making process [2, 49] and by supporting long-termcare management [27, 42, 51]. These systems help providerscontextualize the data necessary for informed diagnoses [49]and facilitate patient-provider communication [1, 32, 39],which can often improve patient health outcomes [37, 48].

Just as trust is important in many collaborative contexts(e.g., [5, 36]), mutual trust is a requirement for successfulpatient-provider collaboration. Patient trust and engagementin the collaboration requires explicit communication abouthow a provider is using their data [12, 30, 40]. Providersneed confidence in patient-generated data to feel comfortableusing it for diagnoses and decision-making processes [55, 57].Designing for successful patient-provider collaboration withpatient-generated data therefore requires understanding howto support trust building: between the patient and provider, inthe patient-generated data, and in the performed analyses.

Our study builds upon this prior work to understandhow patients and providers collaboratively identify andmanage a patient’s individual symptom triggers, focusingon patients with IBS as our particular study context. Weaim to help patients and providers avoid common pitfallsin the interpretation of patient-generated data by performingstatistical analyses to determine what nutrients are significantlycorrelated to their symptoms and appropriately presentingresults for patient-provider collaboration in their interpretation.

Visualizations for Data AnalyticsPrior research has examined transforming self-tracking datainto actionable information by showcasing aspects of thedata in summary visualizations [15]. Visualizations can alsohelp ensure data is considered objectively. For example,Reeder et al. studied older adult perceptions of health-relatedself-tracking data and found that visual presentation wasuseful for objectively identifying trends [44]. We similarlyaim to use visualizations of patient-generated data to supportthe development of actionable treatment plans.

More generally, prior work has examined the design ofcollaborative systems [26, 45, 56]. This work largely guidesthe design of environments and visualizations that supportdistributed collaboration. For example, environments shouldlocate visualizations so that everybody can see them [45, 54].Heer and Agrawala identify seven important considerations forthe design of asynchronous collaboration systems for visualanalytics, including: common ground and awareness; identity,trust, and reputation; and consensus and decision making [22].

Our research examines how interactive visualizations cansupport patients and providers working to identify nutrientsand foods that trigger an individual patient’s symptoms.We develop and investigate interactive visualizations in thecontext of both individual use and synchronous, co-locatedcollaborative use. The visualizations support both the provider(i.e., a medical expert) and the patient (i.e., the expert in theirown lived experience). We designed the visualizations toincorporate the principles identified in prior research that wereapplicable in the context and questions of our work.

STUDY CONTEXT: IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROMEIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic illness that requiresa high degree of patient-provider collaboration to diagnoseand manage. We believe our results apply more broadly topatient-provider collaboration to interpret patient-generateddata, but we provide background on IBS to situate our currentwork. IBS causes gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g., abdominalpain, bloating, constipation, diarrhea) despite normal clinicaltest results. IBS affects up to 20% of the population [14],and no cure currently exists. Up to 70% of people with IBSreport certain foods can cause or worsen symptoms [21], butdifferent foods and nutrients are problematic for differentpeople, so population-level recommendations are ofteninappropriate [34, 46, 61]. Individuals with IBS currently musteither eliminate all nutrients thought to correlate with IBSsymptoms (e.g., FODMAPS, gluten, caffeine [21, 34]) or tryto identify particular nutrients that cause their individualsymptoms. Dramatic elimination diets can be highlyburdensome, and can even lead to malnutrition [21, 29], somany people with IBS want to identify their personal triggers.

Unfortunately, identifying which nutrients are correlated withan individual’s IBS symptoms is a difficult and unreliableprocess. The American Gastroenterological Associationadvises practitioners to have patients keep food and symptomjournals to attempt to identify triggers [3]. However, novalidated method exists to determine significant nutrientsfrom such journals. Patients and providers must instead huntthrough pages of journals to try to find plausible correlations.

DE

C

A B

F

H

G

Figure 1: Each nutrient plot consists of (A) a bubble chart and (B) a bar chart. (C) Hovering over a point shows the food in that meal highest inthe nutrient for each plot. (D) Non-significant nutrients (e.g., fructose) can be added from a dropdown. (E) Each significant nutrient for the selectedsymptom is shown in a separate tab. (F) Nutrients correlated to significant nutrients (e.g., sodium) are shown in a table, from which they can be added tothe visualization. (G) The p value of the nutrient appears when interacting with the plot. (H) Selecting points displays the food and nutrient information.

Despite their effort to identify such correlations, providersoften lack the time and training necessary to do so [11]. Themajority of patients with IBS are dissatisfied with the feedbacktheir healthcare providers give based on their journals [24].An analysis of the recommendations given by 8 experiencedproviders after reviewing 17 paper food and symptomjournals found poor reliability in their recommendations:recommendations for the same patient were inconsistentacross providers, and individual providers showed biasestoward identifying particular triggers regardless of the patient’sdata [59]. Patients and their providers are often dismayed bythe lack of tools to help identify trends in food and symptomjournals [7, 12]. By visualizing significant trends in the contextof a patient’s original data, we hope to improve the process andoutcome in collaborative identification of symptom triggers.

ANALYSIS OF FOOD AND SYMPTOM JOURNALSMotivated by the difficulty of identifying symptom triggersin food and symptom journals, we recruited 10 participantsfrom a prior study of the feasibility of food and symptomjournaling for IBS patients [58]. Where prior work focused onthe collection and analysis of food and symptom journals [58,60], our focus is on patient-provider collaborative review ininterpreting the journals and associated analysis via interactivevisualizations. We briefly review the journal collection andanalysis process, with additional details available in [58].

Journal collection was designed to provide detailed symptomand diet capture while limiting burdens. Consistent withestablished dietary protocol [43, 52], patients journaled for 3sets of 3-day “on” periods, separated by 3-day “off” periods.Patients were asked to record all food and drink with thecorresponding time. At each meal entry, and again at bedtime,patients reported their peak symptoms since the prior entryusing a 4-point scale. Trained research dietitians analyzed thejournals using the Nutrition Data System for Research (NDSR)

[9], decomposing each food in a journal into its constituentnutrients, which were mapped to 19 nutrients believed to becorrelated with IBS symptoms (e.g., sugars, caffeine, lactose).

For each patient’s journal, for each symptom they experienced,we performed regression analyses to identify correlationsbetween food and gastrointestinal symptoms. Informedby prior IBS patient reports on the timing of symptomsfollowing foods they believe triggered those systems [17, 41],independent variables were defined as the sum of a nutrientin all foods reported within the 4-hour window preceding asymptom report. Dependent variables were defined as thecorresponding symptom reports. Symptom entries withoutmeal entries in this 4-hour window were excluded.

Patient-specific feature selection was performed prior toregression analysis. Nutrients can have a high collinearity, dueto both natural co-occurrences (e.g., foods with higher total fattend to have higher total calories) and personal dietary habits(e.g., some people always drink their caffeinated beverageswith milk). However, regressions assume a high degree ofindependence between predictors. For any pair of nutrientsthat had a high pairwise correlation in an individual’s data(> 0.75), we removed the nutrient with the highest averagecorrelation to all other nutrients (i.e., the most redundant).Regressions were performed with the remaining nutrients.

VISUALIZATION DESIGNThis section discusses our design of two exploratory interactivevisualizations, created to help patients and providers interpretwhat nutrients correlate with an individual’s IBS symptomsand what foods in the individual’s diet contain those nutrients.Both visualizations are presented in a web environment createdusing the D3 package [6]. We informally presented earlyiterations to two patients with IBS to inform iterative designprior to the patient and provider interviews we present next.

A

B

C

D

E

Figure 2: (A) A line corresponds to a single meal in the patient’s journal. (B) The user can specify a filter on a variable to only view meals withinthat range. (C) The axis title shows additional information above (the p value on hover) and below (the number of correlated nutrients). Clickingthe number of correlated nutrients expands the visualization to include those nutrients. (D) Hovering over a line fades the other lines out and showsannotations of the food in that meal highest in each nutrient, at the appropriate position on the axis for that food and nutrient. (E) The foods andnutrient values for the hovered line are expanded in the food table below the visualization. The other meals correspond to ones within the current filter.

Design Goals and TradeoffsWe identify four goals motivating our visualization designs,and we consider these goals relative to the different expertiseof patients and providers (e.g., patients have more familiaritywith the data, providers have more clinical expertise).

Flexible. Journaled data is highly particular to each individualpatient. To personalize support for trend identification, avisualization must be able to present patient-generated datafor vastly different diets, nutrient ranges, and symptoms.

Simple. To facilitate collaboration within a clinic appointment,visualizations should allow both patients and providers toeasily view and understand the patient-generated data. Ourvisualizations show each of the patient’s symptoms separately,allowing them to focus on the symptoms most important tothem. A primary goal is to identify nutrients that improve orworsen symptoms, so visualizations need to support simpleidentification of such trends in an individual patient’s data.

Exploratory. Simplicity should be paired with support forthorough exploration of the data. For example, a patientor provider may have a pre-existing belief that a particularnutrient impacts a patient’s symptoms. In addition, allcorrelation analyses have limitations (e.g., the possibility ofoverfitting, potential confounds). All nutrients and symptomsshould therefore be available in the visualization, eventhose not found to be significantly correlated. We definednutrients as significant to a symptom when they had a pvalue of p < 0.1, considering other nutrients non-significant.This p value threshold encourages consideration of morepotential triggers, rather than only extremely confident results.Our visualizations also encourage exploration of correlatednutrients (i.e., those removed from analysis during featureselection due to their high correlation with another nutrient).When nutrients are highly correlated, more data is neededto determine which nutrient is most relevant to a symptom,so encouraging exploration allows patients and providers tocollaboratively apply their understanding and expertise.

Actionable. Visualizations should foreground informationthat helps patients and providers develop diagnoses andtreatment plans based on the patient’s data. Becausestrong correlations are most likely to be actionable, wedefault to visualizing significant nutrients for each symptom.Developing actionable plans also requires patients andproviders to determine which foods contain which nutrients.Our visualizations therefore emphasize relationships betweennutrients and the foods an individual patient actually consumed(i.e., rather than generic examples of foods high in a nutrient).

Motivated by these design goals, our two visualizationsexplore tradeoffs in complexity. The bubble and bar chartvisualization emphasizes the exploration of high-level trends,sacrificing detail in favor of simplicity. This visualization ismore likely to be familiar, as its component visualizationsare often covered in K-12 curricula [20]. In contrast, theparallel coordinates visualization exposes greater detail, andcan display correlations among many variables (e.g., betweensymptoms and nutrients, among multiple nutrients) [23], butare less likely to be familiar. Both designs visualize the samedata, as analyzed via the methods in the previous section.

Data VisualizationsThe bubble and bar chart visualization (Figure 1) emphasizesexploration of high-level trends and the relationship between aselected symptom and a selected nutrient from a patient’s data.Each meal from the patient’s journal is displayed as a point in afaceted bubble chart (Figure 1A, also called a gatherplot [38]).Meals are bucketed by symptom severity and the amount ofthe nutrient in the meal (Low, Medium, High, correspondingto thirds in the distribution of the nutrient in that individualpatient’s data). A stacked bar chart aggregates the informationin the bubble chart to facilitate identification of trends(Figure 1B). The visualization incorporates multiple bubbleand bar chart units to facilitate comparison across nutrients(e.g., correlated nutrients can be added from Figure 1F’s table,non-significant nutrients from Figure 1D’s dropdown).

A B

C D

Figure 3: (A) A nutrient with worsening symptoms in the bar chart: the size of the red bars increases as the nutrient amount increases.(B) A non-significant nutrient does not show a strong trend: the bars are fairly equal for each symptom severity. (C) Correlated variables showmostly parallel lines between the axes in the parallel coordinates visualization. (D) Nutrients without a clear relationship are more jumbled.

The parallel coordinates visualization (Figure 2) emphasizesrelationships between nutrients and includes more detailedinformation (e.g., explicitly showing nutrient ranges in thepatient’s journal). Each meal corresponds to a line through theaxes, thus showing the symptom severity and the amount ofeach nutrient consumed in that meal (Figure 2A). Draggingvertically along an axis creates a filter that grays all excludedlines (Figure 2B). Correlated nutrients can be expanded fromthe label below the name (Figure 2C), and non-significantnutrients can be added from the menubar dropdown.

For both visualizations, hovering over a meal shows the foodin that meal that contained the highest amount of the nutrient(Figure 1C, Figure 2D). Selecting a meal displays a food table,which includes food names and nutrient amounts for eachvisible nutrient (Figure 1H, Figure 2E). Foods with a nutrientamount in the top 75% of foods the patient consumed arehighlighted in the color of the meal’s symptom severity.

Both representations aim to support patient and providerinterpretation by make correlations visually salient. In thebubble and bar chart visualization, correlation is indicatedby the relative area of the stacked bars for each nutrientamount. For example, Figure 3A shows that as the amountof starch in this patient’s diet increases, so does the severityof their symptoms (i.e., the portion of red in the bar growsfrom left to right). In contrast, Figure 3B shows that theamount of fructose does not seem to impact symptoms (i.e., noclear increasing or decreasing trend can be seen in the bars).For the parallel coordinates visualization, Figure 3C showsa strong positive correlation between soluble dietary fiber,total dietary fiber, and insoluble dietary fiber in an individualpatient’s data (i.e., straight horizontal lines between thesenutrients). A strong negative correlation would be indicatedby a tight grouping of line crossings (i.e., an “X” shape).Figure 3D shows no clear correlation between lactose andfructose (i.e., no clear trend in slopes between the nutrients).

Interactive ExperienceUpon opening either visualization, an interactive tutorialexplains how to view, interpret, and interact with thatvisualization. Our goal for these tutorials was to familiarizepatients and providers with the interface and its depictionof data, helping them be more comfortable interpreting thevisualizations. After the tutorial, a summary page presentsactionable entry points into the visualization. The summarypage shows a table of the patient’s symptoms, the significant

nutrients to those symptoms, foods in the particular patient’sdiet that are high in those nutrients, and any nutrients thatwere correlated to the significant nutrients. Nutrients withpositive effect sizes (i.e., symptoms tended to be more severewhen more of the nutrient was consumed) are described asworsening, and those with negative effect sizes (i.e., symptomstended to be less severe when more of the nutrient wasconsumed) are described as improving. Selecting a symptom,nutrient, or correlated nutrient navigates to that view in thevisualization. Each symptom is also accessible from a separatetab in the top menubar, and defaults to showing nutrientsdetermined to be significant for that symptom. If no nutrientwas found to be significantly correlated, an initially empty tabis shown with a short explanation of why nothing is visible.A symptom summary tab also shows an overview of a patient’sreported symptoms without relating them to nutrients.

During our early informal iterations, we found that patientsoften found p values unfamiliar and somewhat intimidating.However, providers considered p values essential to a morecomplete understanding of the information. We thereforeintroduced two modes in the visualizations. In patient mode,p values are hidden from the summary table and correlatednutrients are described as “related”. In provider mode, pvalues are included in the summary table, the term “correlated”is used as appropriate, and the summary table emphasizesthat example foods are taken from the individual patient’s diet(rather than generic examples of foods high in that nutrient).When interacting with the visualizations, p values are shownregardless of mode (Figure 1G, Figure 2C). The mode was setprior to each session, and cannot be changed in the interface.

PATIENT AND PROVIDER INTERVIEW METHODSWe envision the analyses and visualization environments wedeveloped as collaborative tools for people with IBS and theirproviders. To examine the implications for patient-providercollaboration, we conducted semi-structured interviews withpatients and providers, both independently and together.

We recruited 10 providers with experience working withpatients with IBS (4 male) and 10 patients with IBS (2 male,age mean = 33, min = 22, max = 46) (Table 1). We note thispatient gender distribution reflects that of IBS diagnoses [8].Patients were compensated with a $25 Amazon gift card,analysis and interpretation of their data, and a free consultationwith a provider experienced in working with patients with IBS.Providers were compensated with a $50 Amazon gift card.

Table 1: Demographic information for patients and providers. Each patient-provider pair was a new collaboration.

Participant Provider Patient Analysis ResultsGender Type Years of Experience Gender Age Years of Symptoms Symptomsa Nutrientsb

1 F Medical Doctor 17 M 35 18 1 12 M Medical Doctor 5 F 43 3 1 23 F Nurse Practitioner 1 F 34 3 3 54 M Medical Doctor 20 M 25 2 0 05 M Medical Doctor 5 F 22 15 2 36 M Medical Doctor 6 F 34 10 1 27 F Dietitian 16 F 30 9 2 48 F Medical Doctor 5 F 33 5 1 29 F Medical Doctor 2 F 46 33 3 710 F Medical Doctor 6 F 32 17 4 8

aThe number of symptoms with at least one nutrient identified as significantly correlated in our analyses.bThe total number of significantly correlated nutrients identified in our analyses (across all symptoms).

Because visualizations of personal data are most meaningful tothe person who provided the data, we recruited patients fromparticipants in a prior study that involved keeping food andsymptom journals [58]. The prior study was completed abouta year before our analyses and visualizations were developed,so the journals were not recent. We nevertheless believed thatpersonalizing the study with a participant’s own data would bea good representation of the system’s intended use, as patientsmight have detailed questions or hypotheses surrounding theirown food and symptom data. At the time of the prior study, allpatient participants met the Rome III criteria for IBS and hadexperienced IBS symptoms within the previous month [31].Provider participants all had experience working with patientswith IBS, but had not met the patient participants prior to thestudy. Recruiting an already-known provider for each patientparticipant was infeasible, and we decided to be consistent inhaving all patient-provider pairings be new collaborations.

Interviews included two phases: individual and collaborative.In the first, one researcher interviewed the patient whileanother interviewed the provider. This phase lasted 40 minutes,with approximately 20 minutes dedicated to each visualizationand follow-up questions. The order visualizations wereshown was held constant within a patient-provider pairingand counter-balanced across pairings. Participants completedthe tutorial and then explored the visualization of the patient’sdata. They were encouraged to talk aloud during their dataexploration and to ask any questions they had. Researchersthen asked about participant opinions of the visualizations,whether and when they would use them, and what conclusionsthey would draw from them. In the collaborative phase, thepatient and provider were brought together to explore andinterpret the visualizations, simulating a clinic appointment.Participants were given their choice of which visualization(s)to use, and were able to switch between them at any time.They were then jointly asked to compare their experiencesusing the visualizations alone versus collaboratively. The fullprotocol can be found in the supplementary materials.

We structured the interviews to be exploratory, with limitedguidance, for multiple reasons. We wanted to observehow providers would use the tools to investigate theirhypotheses and questions based on their years of experiencetreating patients with IBS. Similarly, we wanted patients toexplore questions about their symptoms, foods, and nutrientsaccording to their personal interests, rather than because we

had artificially instructed them to complete a particular task.Our goal was to understand how patients and providers wouldcollaboratively use the visualizations to manage the patient’sIBS in a clinical setting, based on the patient’s own experienceand the provider’s expertise. Directing participants to answerpre-formulated questions might have better compared howeach visualization addressed those particular questions, but itwould have been less representative of our real-world use-case.However, our method has limitations, as it cannot evaluatehow the visualization techniques influenced the quality of thedata interpretation. We instead focus on the overall experienceof using data visualizations for collaborative interpretation.

When quoting participants from these interviews, we refer topatients as P# and providers as R#. P9 was uncomfortable withthe prospect of a collaborative interview, expressing uneaseabout “bothering somebody to come in”. We therefore onlyinterviewed P9 and R9 separately. P4 had no significantnutrients in their data. To help R4 understand what thevisualizations would look like with significant findings, weshowed R4 visualizations for both P4 and P3. For privacyreasons, patients were only shown their own data.

We audio-recorded and transcribed all interviews. We thenconducted an affinity diagram analysis to identify emergentthemes. Two researchers transformed interview transcriptsinto approximately 800 affinity notes and iteratively organizedthese notes into 75 categories. A third researcher verified anddiscussed the emergent themes with the analysis team. Wethen identified several key themes regarding patient-providercollaboration and use or non-use of the tool to supportcollaboration. We discuss our findings in the next section.

RESULTSParticipants felt the presented analyses and visualizationswould be an asset for patients and providers struggling tointerpret food and symptom data. The interviews also surfacedrequirements for successful patient-provider collaboration.These span from design necessities for systems to supportpatient-provider collaboration to issues of trust and feelingtrusted in the collaboration. We discuss these themes below.

Trust in Patient-Provider CollaborationA recurring theme was the concept of trust in patient-providercollaboration to interpret patient data. Providers need to trusttheir patients to correctly interpret the data visualizations.Both patients and providers were concerned about whether

the other trusted them. Although visualizations helped buildtrust in some cases, they also introduced new considerationsconcerning trust during patient-provider collaboration.

Provider Trust in Patient Data Interpretation AbilitiesAn important question for many providers was whether theycould trust patients to correctly interpret their data. Fiveproviders (R2, R6, R7, R8, R9) worried the visualizations weretoo complicated for patients to interpret and would confusethem. This concern impacted how they expected to use thevisualizations and whether they wanted the patient to be ableto access the visualizations before the clinic appointment.

During individual interviews, R7 and R8 explicitly mentionedthey would likely focus on the summary page during a clinicvisit, only showing patients the data visualizations if they hadbeen able to identify a clear trend or an example they wantedto emphasize to the patient. Four providers (R2, R6, R7, R8)indicated being wary of giving a patient the ability to reviewthe visualizations before the appointment, although three ofthe four (R6, R7, R8) indicated they still thought the patientshould have access if they wanted. R7 believed that the patientshould have access, despite her worries, only because thepatient should “have the right” to see their own data. OnlyR2 said that he did not want a patient to be able to review thevisualizations beforehand. When asked during the individualinterview, he said the patient would find the visualizations toocomplicated and would end up fixating on irrelevant things.

Patient Demonstration of Data Interpretation AbilitiesThe collaborative interviews assuaged many of the concernsproviders initially had about patient abilities regarding datainterpretation. R2 originally did not want patients to haveindependent access to the visualizations, but he changed hismind after the collaborative interview. He appreciated thatthe patient could set her own agenda, bringing things sheconsidered important to the provider’s attention. The patient’sfamiliarity with the data also allowed her to feel comfortableexplaining different aspects of the data. The provider thereforefelt more capable of making recommendations, becausethe patient could contextualize the data. By combiningthe provider’s expert knowledge with the patient’s personalknowledge, they were able to have a deeper conversation aboutpossible problems and solutions, instead of the provider just“coming in and being like, here’s what I found” (R2).

The other three initially skeptical providers (R6, R7, R8) alsoseemed more confident in the abilities of the patients after thecollaborative interview. The patients they were paired with allsaid they would want to be able to review the visualizationsbefore a clinic appointment, and the providers agreed theexposure would be helpful. R8 commented that having bothcollaborators be familiar with the data would help “focus[their] energies during the visit”. She explained:

I don’t like to deliver news to patients that is surprisingif I don’t have to. If [the patient] saw this and [was]like, “Fiber and caffeine? That’s not what I expected”,[the patient] would be processing that ... as opposed tofocusing on ... how I’m interpreting [their] data.

Need to be Trusted by the CollaboratorPatients and providers both commented on the need for theircollaborators to trust what they say. Patients needed providersto understand their experiences, and providers needed patientsto understand why they made certain recommendations.Six providers (R2, R4, R6, R7, R9, R10) and five patients(P1, P5, P6, P7, P8) described that being able to go through anobjective view of the patient’s food and symptom data, ratherthan talking abstractly about the patient’s experiences, helpedthem feel they could more successfully communicate theirviews. P1 and P8 explicitly mentioned that the tools provideda good way to explain the severity and frequency of symptomsthey were experiencing. P1 remarked that such informationis “kind of hard to put into words, but [the visualization] kindof quantifies it”. Four providers (R2, R4, R6, R9) mentionedthe importance of being able to show their patients concrete,personal data to explain their recommendations. R4 explained:

It really helps them understand how what they eat affectstheir symptoms, which is the most important thing. If theydon’t understand that then they can’t change it, right?I think it’s a really objective way to show them “you’vebeen telling me that every time you have pizza your bellyhurts, look, this is it, believe it, stop”.

However, the visualizations also caused some unease for R8and R10, who mentioned feeling “embarrassed” or “anxious”about giving the impression that they lacked necessaryknowledge to explain the visualizations. Although they foundcollaborative review of the data helpful, they also doubted theirabilities to correctly interpret the data or describe what foodscontain certain nutrients. They therefore needed the tool tohave enough information for them to quickly answer questionsthat patients might have. Although the visualizations helpedassuage some concerns regarding trust, systems designed tosupport patient-provider collaboration must also be careful notto introduce new trust-related concerns in the collaboration.

Confidence in Data, Analyses, and VisualizationsSome patients and providers expressed uncertainty whenviewing the visualizations: regarding the data quality, thecorrelation analyses, or the graphical depictions of the data.

Possible Data ConfoundsVisualizations helped patients and providers raise questionsregarding the quality of data collection and analysis withrespect to their original expectations. Four providers (R3, R4,R5, R8) and four patients (P2, P3, P5, P8) mentioned needingto know more about the context of the data in order to trust it,citing possible confounds including emotional and physicalhealth, hydration, and exercise. Similarly, two providers(R2, R7) and three patients (P6, P8, P10) expressed uncertaintybecause they lacked confidence in the patient’s judgment ofsymptom severity during data collection. P8 mentioned:

[A]m I PMSing? If I am, maybe everything is terrible.I’m like, "Pain is terrible. Bloating terrible. Diarrhea?Didn’t really happen, but it’s terrible anyways”.

In addition, five patients (P1, P3, P4, P6, P8) mentionedfeeling their personal experience was not accurately reflected.

As discussed in our correlation analyses, we defined potentialtriggers in terms of the preceding 4-hour window anddiscarded any symptom entries lacking corresponding mealentries. Some patients felt that this strategy did not accuratelyreflect their experience with their symptoms and potentialtriggers, and others recalled symptoms that were not visualized.The time elapsed between data collection and our study alsomay have impacted patient recall and perspective on their data.

Personal vs Population-Level InformationMany participants wanted to verify regression results werebiologically plausible. Three patients (P5, P9, P10) and twoproviders (R7, R10) mentioned wanting to see correspondingpopulation-level data, because it would help them determinewhether the individual data and results were normal. P10 saidshe needed to do more research about the significant nutrientsfrom her analysis to learn whether they often cause IBSsymptoms before deciding whether she trusted the results.

Participants were occasionally confused because the nutrientanalysis was based in the range observed in that patient’sdata, not some population-level average range. For example,P7 was perplexed her results indicated her symptoms improvedwhen she consumed meals with higher fat. She knew fromexperience she consistently feels worse when she consumeshigh-fat meals. In fact, P7 had that knowledge at the time ofdata collection and was already avoiding high-fat meals. Heranalysis therefore did not suggest high-fat meals relative to thebroader population, but rather that she tended to experiencereduced symptoms with meals that were higher in her personalrange of fat content, which was already low compared tothe population average. Including typical diet information orpopulation-level context may improve patient and providerunderstanding and confidence in personalized analyses.

Visualization ComplexityOur visualizations illustrate different tradeoffs in simplicityversus expressiveness. The bubble and bar chart visualizationshows high-level trends, while the parallel coordinates providemore detail. We thought some clear preference mightemerge, but found diverse reactions to the alternatives.Some participants felt both were simple and straightforward,some expressed a preference, and others felt both wereoverwhelmingly complex. Participant confusion sometimeshad consequences for their interpretation of a visualization.Two patients (P2, P5) and one provider (R2) indicated theirability to interpret the visualization directly informed the trustthey had in the presented symptom analyses. R2 explained:

I feel more comfortable with the interpretation than I didbefore where I really don’t think, even toward the end andanswering all your questions, that I actually understand[the parallel coordinates visualization]. Whereas Ifeel like I can understand [the bubble and bar chartvisualization] and make my own conclusions here.

We also observed the opposite: more trust in a visualizationparticipants found confusing. For example, R6 started withthe parallel coordinates visualization. Although he claimed tofind it straightforward, he drew most of his conclusions fromthe summary page. When asked, he stated he had confidence

in the results. However, upon switching to the bubble and barchart visualization, he expressed less confidence, pointing outthat the analysis “relies on how accurate that data is that theperson is inputting”. P8 similarly stated she had confidencein the bubble and bar chart visualization, but upon switchingto the parallel coordinates remarked “this is a really clearvisualization to me of the range of how much fiber did I eat. Iate a really wide range of fiber from my ‘no symptoms’”,thus revealing that she had not comprehended that rangewith the prior visualization. We wanted the visualizationsto provoke such critical thinking, as statistical analyses arelimited (e.g., due to possible overfitting, due to correlatednutrients, due to other potential confounds). Results thereforerequire interpretation to determine if and how they likely applyfor a particular patient. Confusion regarding the visualizationsoften limited such critical thinking, leading participants to relyon the summary page and deemphasize the backing data.

Use Within and Beyond a Clinic AppointmentAlthough we intended the visualizations for collaboration inand surrounding a single clinic visit, participants identifiedopportunities and expressed desire for longer-term use.

Use During the Clinic AppointmentPatients and providers both wanted to use the visualizationscollaboratively in clinic appointments. Eight providers (R1, R2,R3, R4, R5, R7, R8, R10) mentioned that talking to the patienthelped their interpretation of the visualizations. They feltlearning more about the patient helped them give effectiverecommendations: they were interested in patient goals,perception of their symptoms, opinion on their results,thoughts about their current diet, and willingness to changetheir diet. Five patients (P5, P6, P7, P8, P10) mentionedvaluing having an expert’s interpretation of their results, toensure their own interpretations were correct (in some caseswanting interpretation guidance from an expert) and to verifythe results made sense to a provider with experience with IBS.

Use Before the Clinic AppointmentParticipants overwhelmingly wanted to be able to access andreview the visualizations before a clinic appointment. Eightproviders (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8) and six patients(P1, P2, P4, P6, P7, P8) wanted the visualizations to helpprepare for the appointment. P8 also expressed the need to beable to come to terms with any surprising or bad news:

If something came up [in the visualization] that I wasunhappy about ... for me to be able to be unhappy aboutit on my own, and then come to the visit with, “Okay,what are we going to do?” [would be helpful]. EitherI think this is bogus and we should try it again, or I’vecome to terms with the fact that we need to do this.

However, four providers (R3, R6, R8, R10) doubted whetherthey would have the time to review the visualizations betweenclinic appointments. Designs must therefore emphasize theability to quickly understand and interpret the results.

Longer-Term Use Over Multiple Clinic AppointmentsEight providers (R1, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10) and sixpatients (P1, P4, P5, P6, P8, P10) expressed a desire for the

visualizations to enable longer-term, iterative use. IBS is achronic condition, and participants wanted to be able to viewchanges in a patient’s diet and symptoms over time. R8 alsomentioned wanting to be able to take notes about patients andreview those notes before subsequent appointments. Althoughthe analyses and visualizations were designed for a single foodand symptom journal dataset, participants wanted to extendthe system to aid the ongoing management of their IBS.

Use as a Tool for Hypothesis FormationSix providers (R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R10) and one patient (P8)expressed a desire to use the visualizations to form hypothesesabout what nutrients may be impacting a patient’s symptoms.They then wanted to follow up this hypothesis formation withan experimental step testing whether limiting the nutrientimproved the patient’s symptoms. Integrating exploratoryanalyses for hypothesis formation with hypothesis testingthrough self-experimentation [25] is one potential approach toaddressing this desire and providing more actionable results.

DISCUSSIONPatient-generated data is transformed into different typesof boundary negotiating artifacts during patient-providercollaboration [12]. Building on the lens of this theory,we considered our visualizations as inclusion artifacts thatsummarize data to facilitate patient-provider discussion.Computer-supported analyses and visualization reduce thetime and effort needed for a provider to perform on-the-spotmental analysis, thus allowing more interaction with thepatient. Visualizations also help patients communicate theirexperiences clearly and concisely, making them feel morecomfortable and involved in the clinic appointment. Ourdesigns focus on exploratory, interactive visualization andinterpretation, providing the opportunity for patients andproviders to negotiate which potential triggers to consider ina treatment decision. This section draws upon our interviewsto discuss considerations for tools to support patient-providercollaboration in the interpretation of patient-generated data.

Encouraging Provider Trust in Patient AbilitiesMany providers were initially skeptical of whether patientswould be able to correctly interpret the data visualizations.Although this concern was often assuaged during thecollaborative interviews, more dramatic differences betweenpatient and provider modes might be helpful to mitigate theirinitial concerns. Another approach to increasing providerconfidence in patient abilities may be to support differentlevels of exploration with different levels of complexity.For example, we designed: (1) the summary page as anoverview of the main takeaways, (2) the bubble and barchart visualization as a simpler view of high-level trends, and(3) the parallel coordinates visualization as a more detailedview of the patient’s nutrients and symptoms. By supportingdifferent levels of complexity, patients who are comfortableexploring complex visualizations can do so, while patientswho are confused or intimidated can explore the simplerrepresentations to assess their data before a clinic appointment.When the patient then reviews the data with their provider, theprovider could determine the patient’s level of understanding

by inquiring about the complexity level they reviewed at homeand what interpretations they formed during this review. Theprovider could then explain the data at an appropriate level.

When providers are first introduced to patient-generateddata, they often doubt the patient’s ability to correctlycollect or interpret the data [55]. Recent research hasalso found that patients often have difficulty understandingcommon visualizations of health data [35]. However, ourstudy found that many patients were able to navigate acomplex visualization when aided by a short interactivetutorial. Fully developed tutorials could support patientinterpretation and help address provider concerns. A relatedopportunity is suggested for provider-directed tracking (i.e.,when a patient initiates tracking at the request of a provider,a common practice in IBS management). Educationalmaterials and protocols could help ensure patients developthe knowledge necessary to both collect and interpret data,while simultaneously helping to mitigate provider concerns.

Providing Clear and Comprehensive VisualizationsBoth patients and providers were concerned that theircollaborator would not trust or understand what they weretrying to communicate. Patients were concerned providerswould not understand their symptoms, and providers wereworried patients would not believe recommendations theproviders could not illustrate or support. The visualizationshelped assuage many of these concerns by providing clearand objective views of the patient’s experiences, ratherthan relying on abstract conversations about them. As wepreviously discussed with R4’s explanation of the importanceof concrete examples, the visualizations helped foster a feelingof collaboration by giving them something to examine together.Tools designed to help promote patient-provider collaborationshould emphasize such collaborative exploration.

However, the visualizations also introduced potential newconcerns. Providers did not want to be seen as incompetent,and worried they might not be able to quickly and easilynavigate and interpret visualizations in the presence of apatient. To ensure a provider is comfortable, systems shouldbe simple to understand and interpret, with educationalinformation immediately accessible (e.g., in case a patientasks a question that a provider cannot answer). In addition,systems should support patients and providers reviewing dataindividually before an appointment, so that both are confidentabout the data and agenda during collaborative interpretation.

Systems should also surface information about data processing.Prior work in algorithm transparency has suggested makingsystem logic explicit may increase engagement [16, 47, 50].We included details of data analysis as a help page in theinterface, and the tutorial alerted participants to its existence.However, few participants attempted to read this information.Participants may not have seen a need to consult this resourceduring the short interview study, but patients were sometimesconfused about why the displayed data differed from theirrecollection. The fact that participants did not access theinformation may therefore illustrate a need to better integrateit into the visualization itself, rather than presenting it asa separate page. In addition to supporting understanding,

better surfacing analysis details and assumptions can supportpatient and provider evaluation of whether those details andassumptions are appropriate for an individual patient’s case.

Supporting Use Inside and Outside the ClinicPatients and providers wanted to access the visualizations bothbefore and during clinic appointments, and also expresseda desire for long-term use. Providers were concerned thevisualizations may take too long to interpret, which wouldhinder their ability to review data before a clinic appointment.A key requirement for supporting provider use before anappointment is therefore ensuring that interpretation is easyenough for providers to quickly review and get a sense ofthe data between clinic appointments. Another approachis to help the provider prepare for the goals and questionsthe patient is bringing to an appointment. Prior researchhas found that patient-generated data prepares patients forquestions and conversations in face-to-face and remoteprovider appointments [1, 2, 32]. If a system could supportpatient annotation before or between appointments, it mighthelp providers understand a patient’s goals and what questionsthey have for the appointment, thereby allowing the providerto efficiently prepare [11]. Future work should further exploreopportunities and challenges with longitudinal data.

We designed our visualizations to support independent use bya patient or provider as well as synchronous, co-located useby a patient-provider pair. We did not design or evaluate ourvisualizations for use in asynchronous or remote synchronouscollaboration. Additional features may help support effectiveasynchronous collaboration, such as support for commonground and awareness suggested by Heer and Agrawala [22] ordigital traces suggested by Trainer et al. [53]. Future researchshould develop and evaluate such additional enhancements.

Providing Understandable and Actionable InformationThe visualizations sometimes lacked necessary context forinterpretation. For example, five patients (P5, P7, P8, P9, P10)and one provider (R10) mentioned not knowing exactly whatcertain nutrients were. This confusion was exacerbated whenparticipants forgot the data was based entirely on the patient’sdiet. R10 was confused because the visualization indicatedthat coffee had a large amount of soluble fiber, which R10knew was false. However, P10 consumed little dietary fiber.The visualization indicated that coffee was High in solublefiber only relative to that patient’s diet, not relative to anyabsolute notion of a large amount at the population-level.

Similarly, we have reported that P7 was confused about therole fat played in her symptoms. If she understood that shetended to feel better when she ate meals that were relativelyhigh in fat, that information might help her liberalize her diet(e.g., trying meals with slightly higher fat to see whethershe continues to avoid symptoms). Even if P7 did notwant to experiment, better conveying the context for theseanalyses would prevent confusion over an indication thatshe tended to feel better with higher-fat meals. Providingthe context necessary for interpretation is important for alldata visualizations, and is particularly important for designingsystems that are intended to provide actionable information.

Actionable insights are a common goal of patient-providercollaboration, so supporting the translation of results intoaction is essential. However, with data as complex as thatconsidered here, designers should resist the temptation tojump from summaries and recommendations to automatedplan generation. Three providers (R6, R7, R10) and twopatients (P5, P8) wanted the system to tell them exactly whatfoods the patient should avoid. R10 expressed a desire forthe system “to be smarter than a human and come up withits own recommendations ... which it could be, because it’sa computer”. Unfortunately, determining exactly what foodsare causing an individual’s IBS symptoms is beyond the scopeof what can be done with food and symptom journals ofthe type considered in this work (e.g., due to concerns forcorrelations and confounds). We did not want the presentationof an analysis to imply greater confidence than is warranted,but instead focused on using analyses to scaffold exploratoryvisualizations. Patients and providers can then collaborate inapplying their knowledge and expertise to interpret the data.

One approach to actionability in the face of uncertain results isto support hypothesis testing with self-experimentation [25].IBS management is a long-term process that often involvesiterative hypothesis formation and testing, as well as changesin the habits and goals of the patients [33]. Our visualizationsprovide support for identifying potential relationships betweennutrients the patient eats and their subsequent symptoms.Utilizing self-experimentation for hypothesis testing wouldthen provide actionable next steps for patients to determinewhether dietary changes based on these relationships will helpwith the long-term management of their symptoms.

CONCLUSIONBuilding upon prior research in supporting patient-providercollaboration, we developed two visualizations to supportpatients with IBS and their providers in collaborativelyidentifying individual symptom triggers. We designedthe visualizations to be both actionable and exploratory,allowing patients and providers to collaboratively apply theirknowledge and expertise in interpreting the visualizations toreflect, negotiate, and make treatment decisions. We foundthat collaborative review helps both patients and providersbetter understand patient-generated food and symptom data,supporting mutual trust in their relationship. We also revealeda need to use such tools beyond a single clinic appointment tosupport the long-term management of the patient’s illness.

Designers of such systems should help healthcare providersunderstand patient abilities for data interpretation and shouldsupport patients and providers through tutorials and othereducational support. Tools should also be flexible to a range ofpatient data and experiences. To help patients and providersbuild confidence in exploring the data together, designersshould strive to provide simple and understandable views ofthe data, as well as the process of data collection and analysis.Providing more context surrounding patient-generated datacan help patients and providers form better interpretations anddecisions. Finally, as symptom management is a long-termprocess, patients and providers need actionable support to helpthem test and adjust their decisions throughout long-term care.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe thank Jeffrey Heer and Jessica Hullman for their advice onthe data visualizations; Daniel Epstein, Matthew Kay, andour reviewers for their critiques of our paper drafts; andYen Truong for scheduling the interviews. This work wassponsored in part by the AHRQ under award 1R21HS023654,the NSF under awards SCH-1344613 and IIS-1553167,Microsoft Research, and the Intel Science and TechnologyCenter for Pervasive Computing.

REFERENCES1. Rikke Aarhus, Stinne Aaløkke Ballegaard, and

Thomas Riisgaard Hansen. 2009. The eDiary: BridgingHome and Hospital through Healthcare Technology. InThe European Conference on Computer-SupportedCooperative Work. Springer, 63–83.http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-854-4_4

2. Tariq Andersen, Pernille Bjørn, Finn Kensing, and JonasMoll. 2011. Designing for Collaborative Interpretation inTelemonitoring: Re-Introducing Patients as DiagnosticAgents. International Journal of Medical Informatics 80,8 (2011), e112–e126.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.09.010

3. American Gastroenterology Association. 2002. AmericanGastroenterological Association Medical PositionStatement: Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Gastroenterology123, 6 (2002), 2105.http://doi.org/10.1053/gast.2002.37095b

4. Stinne Aaløkke Ballegaard, Thomas Riisgaard Hansen,and Morten Kyng. 2008. Healthcare in Everyday Life:Designing Healthcare Services for Daily Life. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems. 1807–1816.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1357054.1357336

5. Nathan Bos, Judy Olson, Darren Gergle, Gary Olson, andZach Wright. 2002. Effects of Four Computer-MediatedCommunications Channels on Trust Development. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems. 135–140.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/503376.503401

6. Michael Bostock, Vadim Ogievetsky, and Jeffrey Heer.2011. D3: Data-Driven Documents. IEEE Transactionson Visualization and Computer Graphics 17, 12 (2011),2301–2309. http://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2011.185

7. Sorrel Burden. 2001. Dietary Treatment of IrritableBowel Syndrome: Current Evidence and Guidelines forFuture Practice. Journal of Human Nutrition andDietetics 14, 3 (2001), 231–241.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11424515

8. Caroline Canavan, Joe West, and Timothy Richard Card.2014. The Epidemiology of Irritable Bowel Syndrome.Clinical Epidemiology 6 (2014), 71–80.http://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S40245

9. Nutrition Coordinating Center. 2013. Nutrition DataSystem for Research (NDSR). Nutrition CoordinatingCenter, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.(2013).

10. Eun Kyoung Choe, Nicole B Lee, Bongshin Lee, WandaPratt, and Julie A Kientz. 2014. UnderstandingQuantified-Selfers’ Practices in Collecting and ExploringPersonal Data. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1143–1152.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2556288.2557372

11. Chia-Fang Chung, Jonathan Cook, Elizabeth Bales,Jasmine Zia, and Sean A Munson. 2015. More thanTelemonitoring: Health Provider Use and Nonuse ofLife-Log Data in Irritable Bowel Syndrome and WeightManagement. Journal of Medical Internet Research 17, 8(2015), e203. http://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4364

12. Chia-Fang Chung, Kristin Dew, Allison Cole, Jasmine KZia, James Fogarty, Julie A Kientz, and Sean A Munson.2016. Boundary Negotiating Artifacts in PersonalInformatics: Patient-Provider Collaboration withPatient-Generated Data. In Proceedings of the ACMConference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Workand Social Computing.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2818048.2819926

13. Mary Jo Deering, Erin Siminerio, and Scott Weinstein.2013. Issue Brief: Patient-Generated Health Data andHealth IT. Office of the National Coordinator for HealthInformation Technology (2013).

14. Sigrid Elsenbruch. 2011. Abdominal Pain in IrritableBowel Syndrome: A Review of Putative Psychological,Neural and Neuro-Immune Mechanisms. Brain, Behavior,and Immunity 25, 3 (2011), 386–394.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2010.11.010

15. Daniel Epstein, Felicia Cordeiro, Elizabeth Bales, JamesFogarty, and Sean Munson. 2014. Taming DataComplexity in Lifelogs: Exploring Visual Cuts ofPersonal Informatics Data. In Proceedings of theConference on Designing Interactive Systems. 667–676.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2598510.2598558

16. Motahhare Eslami, Aimee Rickman, Kristen Vaccaro,Amirhossein Aleyasen, Andy Vuong, Karrie Karahalios,Kevin Hamilton, and Christian Sandvig. 2015. I AlwaysAssumed that I Wasn’t Really that Close to [Her]:Reasoning about Invisible Algorithms in News Feeds. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems. 153–162.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2702123.2702556

17. Shanti Eswaran, Jan Tack, and William D Chey. 2011.Food: The Forgotten Factor in the Irritable BowelSyndrome. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America40, 1 (2011), 141–162.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gtc.2010.12.012

18. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 2014. PersonalData for the Public Good: New Opportunities to EnrichUnderstanding of Individual and Population Health.Health Data Exploration Project (2014).http://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2014/03/personal-data-for-the-public-good.html

19. Susannah Fox and Maeve Duggan. 2013. Tracking forHealth. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American LifeProject. http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/28/tracking-for-health/

20. Susan N Friel, Frances R Curcio, and George W Bright.2001. Making Sense of Graphs: Critical FactorsInfluencing Comprehension and InstructionalImplications. Journal for Research in MathematicsEducation (2001), 124–158.

21. Peter R Gibson and Susan J Shepherd. 2012. FoodChoice as a Key Management Strategy for FunctionalGastrointestinal Symptoms. The American Journal ofGastroenterology 107, 5 (2012), 657–666.http://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2012.49

22. Jeffrey Heer and Maneesh Agrawala. 2008. DesignConsiderations for Collaborative Visual Analytics.Information Visualization 7, 1 (2008), 49–62.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1391107.1391112

23. Alfred Inselberg. 1997. Multidimensional Detective. InInformation Visualization, 1997. 100–107.http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=857631

24. Anne E Jamieson, Paula C Fletcher, and Margaret ASchneider. 2007. Seeking Control through theDetermination of Diet: A Qualitative Investigation ofWomen with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and InflammatoryBowel Disease. Clinical Nurse Specialist 21, 3 (2007),152–160. http://doi.org/10.1097/01.NUR.0000270015.97457.9c

25. Ravi Karkar, Jasmine Zia, Roger Vilardaga, Sonali RMishra, James Fogarty, Sean A Munson, and Julie AKientz. 2015. A Framework for Self-Experimentation inPersonalized Health. Journal of the American MedicalInformatics Association (2015).http://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv150

26. Robert E Kraut, Darren Gergle, and Susan R Fussell.2002. The Use of Visual Information in Shared VisualSpaces: Informing the Development of VirtualCo-Presence. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference onComputer-Supported Cooperative Work. 31–40.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/587078.587084

27. Mars Lan, Lauren Samy, Nabil Alshurafa, Myung-KyungSuh, Hassan Ghasemzadeh, AureliaMacabasco-O’Connell, and Majid Sarrafzadeh. 2012.Wanda: An End-to-End Remote Health Monitoring andAnalytics System for Heart Failure Patients. InProceedings of the Conference on Wireless Health. 9.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2448096.2448105

28. Ian Li, Anind Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. AStage-Based Model of Personal Informatics Systems. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems. 557–566.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1753326.1753409

29. Solveig C Ligaarden and Per G Farup. 2011. Low Intakeof Vitamin B 6 is Associated with Irritable BowelSyndrome Symptoms. Nutrition Research 31, 5 (2011),356–361.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutres.2011.04.001

30. Catherine Lim, Andrew BL Berry, Tad Hirsch, Andrea LHartzler, Edward H Wagner, Evette Ludman, andJames D Ralston. 2016. It Just Seems Outside My Health:How Patients with Chronic Conditions PerceiveCommunication Boundaries with Providers. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on DesigningInteractive Systems. 1172–1184.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2901790.2901866

31. George F Longstreth, W Grant Thompson, William DChey, Lesley A Houghton, Fermin Mearin, and Robin CSpiller. 2006. Functional Bowel Disorders.Gastroenterology 130, 5 (2006), 1480–1491.http://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2005.11.061

32. Lena Mamykina, Elizabeth Mynatt, Patricia Davidson,and Daniel Greenblatt. 2008. MAHI: Investigation ofSocial Scaffolding for Reflective Thinking in DiabetesManagement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems. 477–486.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1357054.1357131

33. Gabriela Marcu, Anind K Dey, Sara Kiesler, and MadhuReddy. 2016. Time to Reflect: Supporting HealthServices Over Time By Focusing on CollaborativeReflection. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference onComputer-Supported Cooperative Work & SocialComputing. 954–964.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2818048.2820079

34. KW Monsbakken, PO Vandvik, and PG Farup. 2006.Perceived Food Intolerance in Subjects with IrritableBowel Syndrome–Etiology, Prevalence andConsequences. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition60, 5 (2006), 667–672.http://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602367

35. Jasmir G Nayak, Andrea L Hartzler, Liam C Macleod,Jason P Izard, Bruce M Dalkin, and John L Gore. 2015.Relevance of Graph Literacy in The Development ofPatient-Centered Communication Tools. PatientEducation and Counseling (2015).http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.09.009

36. Gary M Olson and Judith S Olson. 2000. DistanceMatters. Human-Computer Interaction 15, 2 (2000),139–178.http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1463019

37. Lucille ML Ong, Johanna CJM De Haes, Alaysia MHoos, and Frits B Lammes. 1995. Doctor-patientCommunication: A Review of the Literature. SocialScience & Medicine 40, 7 (1995), 903–918.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7792630

38. Deokgun Park, S Kim, and Niklas Elmqvist. 2016.Gatherplots: Extended Scatterplots for Categorical Data.Technical Report HCIL-2016-10. Human ComputerInteraction Lab, University of Maryland.

39. Rupa A Patel, Predrag Klasnja, Andrea Hartzler,Kenton T Unruh, and Wanda Pratt. 2012. Probing theBenefits of Real-Time Tracking During Cancer Care. InAMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 2012. 1340.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3540467/

40. Carolyn Petersen. 2016. The Future of PatientEngagement in the Governance of Shared Data. eGEMs 4,2 (2016). http://doi.org/10.13063/2327-9214.1214

41. Iris Posserud, Hans Strid, Stine Störsrud, Hans Törnblom,Ulla Svensson, Jan Tack, Lukas Van Oudenhove, andMagnus Simrén. 2013. Symptom Pattern Following aMeal Challenge Test in Patients with Irritable BowelSyndrome and Healthy Controls. United EuropeanGastroenterology Journal (2013), 358–67.http://doi.org/10.1177/2050640613501817

42. Kavita Radhakrishnan, Kathryn Bowles, AlexandraHanlon, Maxim Topaz, and Jesse Chittams. 2013. ARetrospective Study on Patient Characteristics andTelehealth Alerts Indicative of Key Medical Events forHeart Failure Patients at a Home Health Agency.TELEMEDICINE and e-HEALTH 19, 9 (2013), 664–670.http://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2012.0307

43. Suzanne M Rebro, Ruth E Patterson, Alan R Kristal, andCarrie L Cheney. 1998. The Effect of Keeping FoodRecords on Eating Patterns. Journal of the AmericanDietetic Association 98, 10 (1998), 1163–1165.http://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8223(98)00269-7

44. B Reeder, J Chung, T Le, HJ Thompson, and G Demiris.2014. Assessing Older Adults’ Perceptions of SensorData And Designing Visual Displays for AmbientAssisted Living Environments: An Exploratory Study.Methods of Information in Medicine 53, 3 (2014), 152.http://doi.org/10.3414/ME13-02-0009

45. Tom Rodden, Yvonne Rogers, Halloran John, and IanTaylor. 2003. Designing Novel Interactional Workspacesto Support Face to Face Consultations. In Proceedings ofthe SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems. 57–64.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/642611.642623

46. Magnus Simrén, A Månsson, Anna Maria Langkilde, JanSvedlund, Hasse Abrahamsson, Ulf Bengtsson, andEinar S Björnsson. 2001. Food-Related GastrointestinalSymptoms in the Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Digestion 63,2 (2001), 108–115.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11244249

47. Rashmi Sinha and Kirsten Swearingen. 2002. The Roleof Transparency in Recommender Systems. In CHI’02Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in ComputingSystems. 830–831.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/506443.506619

48. Moira A Stewart. 1995. Effective physician-patientcommunication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ:Canadian Medical Association Journal 152, 9 (1995),1423.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7728691

49. Cristiano Storni. 2011. Complexity in an Uncertain AndCosmopolitan World. Rethinking Personal HealthTechnology in Diabetes With The Tag-it-Yourself.PsychNology Journal 9, 2 (2011), 165–185.

50. Kirsten Swearingen and Rashmi Sinha. 2001. BeyondAlgorithms: An HCI Perspective on RecommenderSystems. In ACM SIGIR 2001 Workshop onRecommender Systems, Vol. 13. 1–11.

51. Paul C Tang, J Marc Overhage, Albert Solomon Chan,Nancy L Brown, Bahar Aghighi, Martin P Entwistle,Siu Lui Hui, Shauna M Hyde, Linda H Klieman,Charlotte J Mitchell, Anthony J Perkins, Lubna SQureshi, Tanya A Waltimyer, Leigha J Winters, andCharles Y Young. 2013. Online Disease Management ofDiabetes: Engaging And Motivating Patients Online WithEnhanced Resources-Diabetes (EMPOWER-D), aRandomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the AmericanMedical Informatics Association 20, 3 (2013), 526–534.http://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001263

52. Frances E Thompson and Amy F Subar. 2008. DietaryAssessment Methodology. Nutrition in the Preventionand Treatment of Disease 2 (2008), 3–39. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012193155-1/50003-9

53. Erik H Trainer, Ban Al-Ani, and David F Redmiles. 2011.Impact of Collaborative Traces on Trustworthiness. InProceedings of the 4th International Workshop onCooperative and Human Aspects of SoftwareEngineering. 40–47.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1984642.1984649

54. Kenton T Unruh, Meredith Skeels, AndreaCivan-Hartzler, and Wanda Pratt. 2010. TransformingClinic Environments into Information Workspaces forPatients. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference onHuman Factors in Computing Systems. 183–192.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1753326.1753354

55. Peter West, Richard Giordano, Max Van Kleek, and NigelShadbolt. 2016. The Quantified Patient in the Doctor’sOffice: Challenges & Opportunities. In Proceedings ofthe SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems. 3066–3078.http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2858036.2858445

56. Anna Wu, Gregorio Convertino, Craig Ganoe, John MCarroll, and Xiaolong Luke Zhang. 2013. SupportingCollaborative Sense-Making in Emergency ManagementThrough Geo-Visualization. International Journal ofHuman-Computer Studies 71, 1 (2013), 4–23.http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2408771

57. Haining Zhu, Joanna Colgan, Madhu Reddy, andEun Kyoung Choe. 2016. Sharing Patient-Generated Datain Clinical Practice: An Interview Study. Proceedings ofthe American Medical Informatics Association (ToAppear) (2016).

58. Jasmine Zia, Chia-Fang Chung, Jessica Schroeder, SeanMunson, Julie Kientz, James Fogarty, Elizabeth Bales,Jeanette M Schenk, and Margaret Heitkemper. 2016b.The Feasibility, Usability and Perceived Clinical Utilityof Traditional Paper Food and Symptom Journals forPatients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome.Neurogastroenterology & Motility (2016).http://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.12935

59. Jasmine Zia, Chia-Fang Chung, Kaiyuan Xu, Yi Dong,Kevin Cain, Sean A Munson, and Margaret Heitkemper.2016c. Inter-Rater Reliability of Healthcare ProviderInterpretations of Food and Gastrointestinal SymptomPaper Diaries of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome.Digestive Disease Week (2016).http://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(16)33045-1

60. Jasmine Zia, Jessica Schroeder, Sean Munson, JamesFogarty, Linda Nguyen, Pamela Barney, MargaretHeitkemper, and Uri Ladabaum. 2016d. Feasibility andUsability Pilot Study of a Novel Irritable BowelSyndrome Food and Gastrointestinal Symptom JournalSmartphone App. Clinical and TranslationalGastroenterology 7, 3 (2016), e147.http://doi.org/10.1038/ctg.2016.9

61. Jasmine K Zia, Pamela Barney, Kevin C Cain, Monica EJarrett, and Margaret M Heitkemper. 2016a. AComprehensive Self-Management Irritable BowelSyndrome Program Produces Sustainable Changes inBehavior After 1 Year. Clinical gastroenterology andhepatology: the official clinical practice journal of theAmerican Gastroenterological Association 14, 2 (2016),212–219.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2015.09.027