Issues and challenges of involving users in medical device development

Health Expectations

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 63-71

  Bridgelal Ram, Mala ^a   Grocott, Patricia R ^a   Weir, Heather C M ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ethics; Medical device development; User engagement; User expectations; User participation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; DEVICE; EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; WOUND CARE;

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; NURSE-PATIENT RELATIONS; ORGANIZATIONAL CASE STUDIES; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; WOUND HEALING; WOUNDS AND INJURIES;

EID: 39049083012     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00464.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Department of Health. The Expert Patient: a New Approach to Chronic Disease Management for the 21st Century. London : Department of Health, 2001. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyandGuidance/DH_4006801, accessed on 15/08/05.
2. Department of Health. Best Research for Best Health: A New National Health Research Strategy. London : Department of Health, 2005. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/11/69/35/04116935.pdf Last Accessed 23/08/05.
3. Department of Health. Creating a Patient led NHS - Delivering the NHS Improvement Plan. London : Department of Health, 2005. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/10/65/07/04106507.pdf, accessed on 23/08/05.
4. Oliver S, Harden A, Rees R. An emerging framework for including different types of evidence in systematic reviews for public policy. Evaluation, 2005 11 : 428 446.
5. Smith E, Ross F, Masterson A. Developing a service user framework to shape priorities for nursing and midwifery research. Journal of Research in Nursing, 2005 10 : 107 118.
6. Healthcare Industries Task Force. Better Health Through Partnership: a Programme for Action. London : Healthcare Industries Task Force, 2004. Available at: http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/hitf/hitf_final_report_nov2004.pdf, accessed on 15/08/05.
7. Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital, Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital. The Report of the Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry, 1999. Available at: http://www.rlcinquiry.org.uk, accessed on 05/03/22.
8. Parliamentary Report. Learning from Bristol: The Report of the Public Inquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984-1995. Norwich, Stationary office 2001. Available at: http://www.bristol-inquiry.org. uk.
9. Hanley B, Bradburn J, Barnes M et al. Involving the Public in NHS, Public Health, and Social Care Research: Briefing Notes for Researchers. 2003. Available at: http://www.invo.org.uk/pdfs/Briefing%20Note%20final.dat.pdf.
10. Beresford P. User involvement in research: exploring the challenges. Nursing Times Research, 2003 8 : 1.
11. Entwistle VA, Renfrew MJ, Yearley S, Forrester J, Lamont T. Lay perspectives: advantages for health research. British Medical Journal, 1998 316 : 463 466.
12. Liberati A. Editorial: Consumer participation in research and health care. British Medical Journal, 1997 315 : 499.
13. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Disclosing individual results of clinical research - implications of respect for participants. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005 294 : 737 740.
14. Dixon-Woods M, Jackson C, Windridge KC, Kenyon S. Receiving a summary of the results of a trial: qualitative study of participants' views. British Medical Journal, 2006 332 : 206 210.
15. Janzen JA, Silvius J, Jacobs S et al. What is a health expectation? Developing a pragmatic conceptual model from psychological theory Health Expectations, 2006 9 : 37 48.
16. Williamson C. Editorial: What does involving consumers in research mean? QJM: Oxford University Press, 2001 94 : 661 664.
17. TM Research Center. Available at http://www.niku.com/research-center-513.html.
18. Bridgelal Ram M, Browne N, Grocott PR, Weir HCM. Methodologies to Capture User Perspectives in Medical Device Development: A Survey of the Healthcare Literature. Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technologies Centre for Healthcare (MATCH) Report 2005. Project 3: Deliverable 6. Available at: http://www.match.ac.uk.
19. Sethi PK. Appropriate technology for rehabilitation aids in developing countries. Annals of the National Academy of Medical Sciences (India), 1982 18 : 34 42.
20. Sheredos SJ, Cupo ME. The Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service's technology transfer process. Technology & Disability, 1997 7 : 25 29.
21. Burkitt J, Torrens GE, Kay GH, Sandbach D, Sutherland IA. The development of the Autosip: a hygienic, self-operated, drinking device for people with minimal sucking ability and/or minimal arm strength. Journal of Rehabilitation Science, 1995 8 : 115 118.
22. Hefzy MS, Nemunaitis G, Hess M. Design and development of a pressure relief seating apparatus for individuals with quadriplegia. Assistive Technology, 1996 8 : 14 22.
23. Malassigne P, Nelson AL, Cors MW, Amerson TL. Design of the advanced commode-shower chair for spinal cord-injured individuals. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 2000 37 : 373 382.
24. Malassigne P, Nelson AL, Cors MW, Jensen RP, Amato M, Schnurr ES. Iterative design and evaluation of new prone carts for individuals with SCDs: a technical note. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 2002 39 : 127 139.
25. Mulholland SJ, Packer TL, Laschinger SJ, Lysack JT, Wyss UP, Balaram S. Evaluating a new mobility device: feedback from women with disabilities in India. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2000 22 : 111 122.
26. Alam I. An exploratory investigation of user involvement in new service development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2002 30 : 250 261.
27. Magnusson PR, Matthing J, Kristensson P. Managing user involvement in service innovation: experiments with innovating end users. Journal of Service Research, 2003 6 : 111 124.
28. Cowley SA, Richardson A, Grocott P et al. Woundcare Research for Appropriate Products - Position Paper. 2004. Available at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ wrap/docs/position.pdf
29. Bruseberg A, McDonagh-Philp D. New product development by eliciting user experience and aspirations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2001 55 : 435 452.
30. Gibbs A. Social research update: focus groups. Online publication available at http://www.sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk.
31. Wilson S, Bekker M, Johnson P, Johnson H. Helping and Hindering User Involvement - a Tale of Everyday Design. Association for Computing Machinery 1997. Available at: http://acm.org/sigchi/chi97/proceedings/paper/sw-obf.htm
32. Norman AN. The Design of Everyday Things. New York : Basic Books, 2002.
33. Grocott P, Cowley S. The palliative management of fungating malignant wounds - generalising from multiple-case study data using a system of reasoning. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2001 385 : 533 545.
34. Browne N, Grocott P, Cowley S. The wound dressing supply chain within England's National Health Service: unravelling the context for users. Journal of Nursing Management, 2004 12 : 51 61.