Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T20:26:23.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing medical device technologies from users' perspectives: A theoretical framework for involving users in the development process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2009

Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah ,
Ian Robinson  and
Sarmad AlShawi
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah
Affiliation:
Brunel University
Ian Robinson
Affiliation:
Brunel University
Sarmad AlShawi
Affiliation:
Brunel University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to suggest an acceptable and generic theoretical framework for involving various types of users in the medical device technology (MDT) development process (MDTDP).

Methods: The authors propose a theoretical framework suggesting different routes, methods and stages through which various types of medical device users can be involved in the MDTDP.

Results: The suggested framework comprises two streams of users’ involvement in MDT development, that is, what might be called the end users’ stream and the professional users’ stream for involving these two groups respectively in the process of developing both simple and more complex and innovative medical devices from conceptualization through to the market deployment. This framework suggests various methods that can be used for users’ involvement at different stages of the MDT lifecycle. To illustrate the application of the framework, several MDT development scenarios and device exemplars are presented.

Conclusions: Development of medical devices from users’ perspectives requires not only the involvement of healthcare professionals but also that of the ultimate end users, that is, patients, people with disabilities and/or special needs, and their caregivers. The evidence shows that such end users quickly discard devices that do not fulfill their personal expectations, even though both manufacturers and healthcare professionals may consider those end users’ requirements met. Developers and manufacturers need to recognize this potent potential discrepancy between the parties involved, and involve end users and professional healthcare staff directly in the MDTDP. The framework, the authors contend, is a step forward in helping medical device manufacturers plan and make decisions about users’ involvement at different stages of the MDTDP.

Keywords

User involvementDevice development processMedical device technology assessmentUser perspectiveConceptual framework
Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 514 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Anderson, GJM. Shaping the future: Using voice of the customer methodology to develop inhaler design. In: Dalby, RN, Byron, PR, Peart, J, Farr, SJ, eds. Proceedings of Respiratory Drug Delivery VIII Conference. May 12–16, 2002. Tucson, AZ: Serentec Press. 2002;179–188.Google Scholar
2. Andre, TS, Hartson, HR, Belz, SM, Mccreary, FA. The user action framework: A reliable foundation for usability engineering support tools. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2001;54:107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Batavia, AI, Hammer, GS. Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1990;27:425–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Bridgelal Ram, M, Campling, N, Grocott, P, Weir, H. A methodology for a structured survey of the healthcare literature related to medical device users. Evaluation. 2008;14:49–73.Google Scholar
5. Bridgelal Ram, M, Grocott, PR, Weir, HCM. Issues and challenges of involving users in medical device development. Health Expect. 2008;11:63–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Buhler, C. Approach to the analysis of user requirements in assistive technology. Int J Ind Ergon. 1996;17:187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Buhler, C, Hoelper, R, Hoyer, H, Humann, W. Autonomous robot technology for advanced wheelchair and robotic aids for people with disabilities. Robot Auton Syst. 1995;14:213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Campbell, M, Fitzpatrick, R, Haines, A, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321:694–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Cooper, RG, Kleinschmidt, EJ. An investigation into the new product process: Steps, deficiencies, and impact. J Prod Innov Manage. 1986;3:71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Dixon, D, Brown, A, Meenam, BJ, Eatock, J. Experiences of new product development in the medical device industry. Med Device Technol. 2006;17:20–22.Google ScholarPubMed
11. Ekelman, KB, ed. New medical devices: Invention, development, and use. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1988.Google Scholar
12. Garmer, K, Liljegren, E, Osvalder, A-L, Dahlman, S. Application of usability testing to the development of medical equipment. Usability testing of a frequently used infusion pump and a new user interface for an infusion pump developed with a human factors approach. Int J Ind Ergon. 2002;29:145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Garmer, K, Ylven, J, MariAnne Karlsson, IC. User participation in requirements elicitation comparing focus group interviews and usability tests for eliciting usability requirements for medical equipment: A case study. Int J Ind Ergon. 2004;33:85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Grocott, P, Weir, H, Ram, MB. A model of user engagement in medical device development. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2007;20:484–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Handels, H, Rinast, E, Busch, C, et al. Image transfer and computer-supported cooperative diagnosis. J Telemed Telecare. 1997;3:103–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Hasu, M. Constructing clinical use: An activity-theoretical perspective to implementing new technology. Technol Anal Strateg Manage. 2000;12:369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Hummel, M, van Rossum, W, Omta, O, et al. Types and timing of inter-organizational communication in new product development. Creativ Innovat Manag. 2001;10:225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Kaufman, DR, Patel, VL, Hilliman, C, et al. Usability in the real world: Assessing medical information technologies in patients’ homes. J Biomed Inform. 2003;36:45–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Kittel, A, Marco, AD, Stewart, H. Factors influencing the decision to abandon manual wheelchairs for three individuals with a spinal cord injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:106–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Lichter, H, Schneider-Hufschmidt, M, Zullighoven, H. Prototyping in industrial software projects-bridging the gap between theory and practice. IEEE Trans Softw Eng. 1994;20:825–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Liljegren, E, Osvalder, A-L. Cognitive engineering methods as usability evaluation tools for medical equipment. Int J Ind Ergon. 2004;34:49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Lin, L, Isla, R, Doniz, K, et al. Applying human factors to the design of medical equipment: Patient-controlled analgesia. J Clin Monitor Comp. 1998;14:253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Marshall, R, Case, K, Oliver, R, et al. A task based ‘design for all’ support tool. Robot Comput Integr Manuf. 2002;18:297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Martin, JL, Murphy, E, Crowe, JA, Norris BJ. Capturing user requirements in medical device development: The role of ergonomics. Physiol Meas. 2006;27:R49–R62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Medical Research Council. A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. London: Medical Research Council Health Services and Public Health Research Board; 1 April 2000.Google Scholar
26. Miettinen, R, Hasu, M. Articulating user needs in collaborative design: Towards an activity-theoretical approach. Comput Support Coop Work. 2002;11:129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Mulholland, SJ, Packer, TL, Laschinger, SJ, et al. Evaluating a new mobility device: Feedback from women with disabilities in India. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:111–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Obradovich, JH, Woods, DD. Users as designers: How people cope with poor HCI design in computer-based medical devices. Hum Factors. 1996;38:574–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Rhodes, P, Nocon, A, Wright, J, Harrison, S. Involving patients in research - Setting up a service users’ advisory group. J Manag Med. 2001;15:167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Rochford, L, Rudelius, W. New product development process: Stages and successes in the medical products industry. Ind Market Manag. 1997;26:67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Sculpher, M, Drummond, M, Buxton, M. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997;2:26–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Shah, SGS, Robinson, I. User involvement in medical device technology development and assessment: A structured literature review. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2006;19:500–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Shah, SGS, Robinson, I. Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:131–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Shah, SGS, Robinson, I. Medical device technologies: Who is the user? Int J Health Care Technol Manag. 2008;9:181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Sheredos, SJ, Cupo, ME. The department of veterans affairs rehabilitation research and development service's technology transfer process. Technol Disabil. 1997;7:25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. United States Congress. Assistive Technology Act of 1998. Public Law 105–394 - Nov 13, 1998, vol. 112 STAT. Washington, DC: 1998.Google Scholar
37. Vallejo-Torres, L, Steuten, LMG, Buxton, MJ, et al. Integrating health economics modelling in the product development cycle of medical devices: A Bayesian approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:459–464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. World Health Organization. Medical device regulations: Global overview and guiding principles. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003.Google Scholar
39. Zhang, J, Johnson, TR, Patel, VL, et al. Using usability heuristics to evaluate patient safety of medical devices. J Biomed Inform. 2003;36:23–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Shah supplementary material

Supplementray figures

Download Shah supplementary material(File)
File 485.4 KB