Clinicians as health technology designers: Two contrasting tales about user involvement in innovation development

Health Policy and Technology

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 122-130

  Lehoux, P ^a   Miller, F A ^b   Hivon, M ^a   Demers Payette, O ^a   Urbach, D R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Academic Spin Offs; Health Innovation; Healthcare systems; Product Design; User Involvement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIRTH INJURY; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HOME MONITORING; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LABOR; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 84880586565     PISSN: 22118837     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2013.05.003     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Miller F.A., Sanders C., Lehoux P. Imagining value, imagining users: academic technology transfer for health innovation. Social Science and Medicine 2009, 68:1481-1488.
2. Kryl D., Marjanovic S., Chonaill S.N., Ridsdale H., Yaqub O. Healthcare technology co-operatives. Filling a niche in the English R&D landscape. Technical report prepared for the Department of Health (England) 2011, RAND Europe, Cambridge, UK.
3. Chatterji A.K., Fabrizio K.R., Mitchell W., Schulman K.A. Physician-industry cooperation in the medical device industry. Health Affairs 2008, 27:1532-1543.
4. Gelijns A., Rosenberg N. The dynamics of technological change in medicine. Health Affairs 1994, 13:28-46.
5. Lehoux P., Williams-Jones B., Miller F., Urbach D., Tailliez S. What leads to better health innovation? Arguments for an integrated policy-oriented research agenda. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 2008, 13:251-254.
6. Croxson B., Hanney S., Buxton M. Routine monitoring of performance: what makes health research and development different?. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 2001, 6:226-232.
7. Kruger C., Cross N. Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes. Design Studies 2006, 27:527-548.
8. Martin J.L., Clark D.J., Morgan S.P., Crowe J.A., Murphy E. A user-centred approach to requirements elicitation in medical device development: a case study from an industry perspective. Approach Engineering 2012, 43:184-190.
9. Shah S.G.S., Robinson I., AlShawi S. Developing medical device technologies from users' perspectives: a theoretical framework for involving users in the development process. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2009, 25:514-521.
10. Davey S.M., Craven M.P., Meenan B.J., Martin J.L., Crowe J.A. Surgeon opinion on new technologies in orthopaedic surgery. Journal of Medical Engineering and Technology 2011, 35:139-148.
11. Money A.G., Barnette J., Kuljis J., Craven M.P., Martin J.L., Young T. The role of the user within the medical device design and development process: medical device manufacturers' perspectives. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2011, 11:15.
12. Kujala S. User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour and Information Technology 2003, 22:1-16.
13. Heiskanen E., Hyysalo S., Kotro T., Repo P. Constructing innovative users and user-inclusive innovation communities. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 2010, 22:495-511.
14. Lehoux P. The problem of health technology: policy implications for modern health care systems 2006, Routledge, New York.
15. Gibbert M., Ruigrok W. The what and how of case study rigor: three strategies based on published work. Organizational Research Methods 2010, 13:710-737.
16. Flyvberg B. Case study. The sage handbook of qualitative research 2011, 301-316. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. 4th ed. N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.).
17. Miles M.B., Huberman A.M. Qualitative data analysis 1994, Sage, Beverly Hills.
18. Lehoux P., Hivon M., Williams-Jones B., Miller F., Urbach D. How do medical device manufacturers' websites frame the value of health innovation? An empirical ethics analysis of five Canadian innovations. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2012, 15(1):61-77.
19. Harfield S. On design problematization': theorising differences in designed outcomes. Design Studies 2007, 28:159-173.