Beslutningsstøtte ved flåttbitt Personal proposal by Per-Arne Andersen H8 · Spring 2027 https://thesis.uya.no/proposals/decision-support-after-tick-bites/ Make tick-bite information easier to find and understand using Helsenorge’s published guidance. TECHNICAL - Create a rule-based question flow linking each answer to a dated Helsenorge passage. - Add a timeline and an explicit “information missing” outcome; no diagnosis or image classification. DATA (mixed) 2 Helsenorge pages + 20 fictional tick-bite cases Use “Flått” and “Flåttbitt og borreliose”. Create cases varying time, reported observations and missing details; clinician approves the answer key. Helsenorge: Flått: https://www.helsenorge.no/helse-og-miljo/insekter-og-skadedyr/flatt/ Helsenorge: Flåttbitt og borreliose: https://www.helsenorge.no/sykdom/infeksjon-og-betennelse/borreliose/ METHOD 12 adults answer 8 information-finding questions using the guide and original pages in balanced order. Compare correct source retrieval, understanding and time. OUTPUT Linked guide, reviewed cases and usability results. BACHELOR Task: Build a source-linked guide to the two Helsenorge pages using reviewed, fixed navigation rules. Data: 2 Helsenorge pages + 20 fictional tick-bite cases (mixed) Use “Flått” and “Flåttbitt og borreliose”. Create cases varying time, reported observations and missing details; clinician approves the answer key. Requires: Recruit adults and a clinical reviewer before testing. Method: Use the clinician-reviewed fictional cases; test the rule branches and observe 6 adults finding information. Output: An information guide and a documented usability evaluation. Use relevant literature to justify the established approach; a new research contribution is not the aim of this proposal. MASTER Investigate how a source-linked guide handles uncertainty in health information. Compare the guide with original pages across complete, incomplete and inconsistent cases; test comprehension and incorrect reassurance separately. Intended contribution: Source-traceable design principles for uncertainty handling in public-health information systems. STARTING PAPERS Wang & Strong (1996) — Beyond Accuracy: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099 Distinguish accuracy, completeness, representation and fitness for the task. Vessey & Galletta (1991) — Cognitive Fit: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/isre.2.1.63 Test whether a representation helps one kind of task more than another. Search Scopus or Web of Science and ACM Digital Library using the topic query, then follow citations to the thesis start date. Record searches and compare methods, data, findings and limitations in literature-matrix.csv. Use that review to confirm or revise the gap and choose a current comparator. The linked papers are starting points. START HERE Tools: HTML/CSS/JavaScript, JSON, spreadsheet 1. Save dated copies of both linked Helsenorge pages and record the exact passages used. 2. Draft 4 fictional question cards and an answer sheet; get clinical review before making an advice flow. 3. Build one source-linked information path and pilot wording; do not collect personal medical histories. Literature search: tick bite online health information comprehension decision support Study controls: - Before collecting participant data, agree consent, storage and withdrawal handling with the supervisor. Use participant codes, not names, in study files. - Separate silent timed tasks from retrospective interviews. Timing during think-aloud sessions is descriptive, not an isolated interface-speed effect. - Include missing dates, inconsistent input and boundary/out-of-scope cases; test every rule branch. Missing information must not produce a reassuring conclusion. The comparison measures the whole guide, not the separate effect of a timeline or rules. - For the master’s study, use the research task above to define the factors and comparisons in this pilot plan. Preregister one primary outcome and feasible scope after the literature review; do not add every possible model or interface variant. REQUIRES Recruit adults and a clinical reviewer before testing. -------------------- NON-TECHNICAL - Use the two existing Helsenorge pages without building software. - Observe adults finding answers, then ask them to explain what they understood. DATA (mixed) 2 Helsenorge pages + 8 question cards Prepare fictional cases about finding relevant information and when to contact healthcare; clinician reviews the question and answer sheet. Helsenorge: Flått: https://www.helsenorge.no/helse-og-miljo/insekter-og-skadedyr/flatt/ Helsenorge: Flåttbitt og borreliose: https://www.helsenorge.no/sykdom/infeksjon-og-betennelse/borreliose/ METHOD 12 adults, 30-minute think-aloud sessions. Score answers against the reviewed sheet and code unclear wording or navigation problems. OUTPUT Ranked list of information problems and rewritten example passages. BACHELOR Task: Identify wording and navigation problems in Helsenorge’s tick-bite information. Data: 2 Helsenorge pages + 8 question cards (mixed) Prepare fictional cases about finding relevant information and when to contact healthcare; clinician reviews the question and answer sheet. Requires: Recruit adults and a clinical reviewer; no personal medical histories. Method: Observe 6 adults answering the question cards on the existing pages; classify failures by task and page location. Output: Prioritised page improvements supported by observed problems. Use relevant literature to justify the established approach; a new research contribution is not the aim of this proposal. MASTER Explain which reading failures arise from page structure and which from users’ interpretation of incomplete information. Use task/representation fit and information-quality categories; analyse cases that do not fit the initial account. Intended contribution: An evidence-based explanation of comprehension failures, beyond a list of page defects. STARTING PAPERS Vessey & Galletta (1991) — Cognitive Fit: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/isre.2.1.63 Test whether a representation helps one kind of task more than another. Wang & Strong (1996) — Beyond Accuracy: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099 Distinguish accuracy, completeness, representation and fitness for the task. Search Scopus or Web of Science and ACM Digital Library using the topic query, then follow citations to the thesis start date. Record searches and compare methods, data, findings and limitations in literature-matrix.csv. Use that review to confirm or revise the gap and choose a current comparator. The linked papers are starting points. START HERE Tools: LibreOffice Writer/Calc, audio recorder with consent; no programming required. 1. Prepare a pilot with 2 examples from: 2 Helsenorge pages + 8 question cards. Write the task questions and a reference answer sheet. 2. Write a recruitment message, information sheet and consent form for the participants named above. Agree privacy handling with the supervisor before contact. 3. Pilot one session after approval; revise unclear questions, freeze the task sets and coding categories, then recruit the planned sample. Literature search: tick bite online health information comprehension decision support qualitative scenario study Study controls: - Before collecting participant data, agree consent, storage and withdrawal handling with the supervisor. Use participant codes, not names, in study files. - Pilot separately, then freeze the questions and coding plan. Check objective answer keys independently; keep an audit trail of coding, including disagreements. - For comparisons, counterbalance order and case assignment; do not show a person both versions of one case. Report participant-level findings, not repeated tasks as independent people. REQUIRES Recruit adults and a clinical reviewer; no personal medical histories. Bachelor: apply established methods and evaluate a practical solution or study. Master: position a research question in current scientific literature, investigate a mechanism or unresolved problem, and explain the contribution. Final scope is agreed with me. Study sizes are proposed; participant recruitment and planned materials are not already arranged.