Taxonomy of surrogate users for the development and evaluation of medical devices from the end users’ perspective

IFMBE Proceedings

Volumn 15, Issue , 2007, Pages 546-549

  Shah, Syed Ghulam Sarwar ^a   Robinson, I ^a  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Medical device; Surrogate; Taxonomy; User; User Perspective

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING;

END USERS; MAKING DECISION; MEDICAL DEVICES; SURROGATE; SURROGATE USER; USER; USER PERSPECTIVES;

TAXONOMIES;

EID: 84928883338     PISSN: 16800737     EISSN: 14339277     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-68017-8_137     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Tsai W.-T., Mojdehbakhsh R, Rayadurgam S. (1997) Experience in capturing requirements for safety-critical medical devices in an industrial environment. In: Proceedings of second IEEE High-Assurance Systems Engineering Workshop, 11- 12 Aug 1997. Washington, DC: pp 32-36.
2. Kaye RD. (2000) Human factors (HF) in medical device use safety: how to meet the new challenges. In: Proceedings of the XIVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association and 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Association, ‘Ergonomics for the New Millennium’, July 29-August 4, 2000. San Diego, CA, United State. pp 550-552.
3. Shaw B. (1985) The role of the interaction between the user and the manufacturer in medical equipment industry. R&D Manage. 15: 283-292.
4. Biemans WG. (1991) User and third-party involvement in developing medical equipment innovations. Technovation 11: 163-182.
5. Shah SGS, Robinson I. (2006) User involvement in healthcare technology development and assessment: Structured literature review. Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur., 19: (Accepted, in press).
6. Robinson I, Shah SGS, Bridgelal Ram M et al. (2005) MATCH guide towards user involvement in medical device technology assessment. Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technologies Centre for Healthcare (MATCH) program. Deliverable No. 10. Available at: http://www.match.ac.uk/
7. Shah SGS, Robinson I. (2006) Medical device technologies: who is the user? Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technologies Centre for Healthcare (MATCH) program. Document No. J2304. Available at: http://www.match.ac.uk/
8. Marshall R, Case K, Oliver R et al. (2002) A task based ‘design for all’ support tool. Robot Cim-Int. Manuf., 18: 297-303.
9. De P, Ferratt TW. (1998) An interorganizational information system in the health care arena: Insights gained from a hierarchical analysis. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer personnel research, March 26-28, (Agarwal R, ed). Boston, MA, USA. pp 214-223.
10. De P, Ferratt TW. (1998) An information system involving competing organizations. Commun. ACM 41: 90-98.
11. Beverley CA, Bath PA, Booth A. (2004) Health information needs of visually impaired people: a systematic review of the literature. Health Soc. Care Comm., 12: 1-24.
12. Bruce J, Mollison J. (2004) Reviewing the literature: adopting a systematic approach. J. Fam. Plan. Reprod. H., 30: 13-16.
13. High DM, Turner HB. (1987) Surrogate decision-making: the elderly’s familial expectations. Theor. Med. Bioeth., 8: 303-320.
14. High DM. (1990) Old and alone: surrogate health care decision making for the elderly without families. J. Aging Stud., 4: 277-288.
15. Meeker MA. (2004) Family surrogate decision making at the end of life: seeing them through with care and respect. Qual. Health Res., 14: 204-225.
16. Coppolino M, Ackerson L. (2001) Do surrogate decision makers provide accurate consent for intensive care research? Chest 119: 603-612.
17. Bramstedt KA. (2003) Questioning the decision-making capacity of surrogates. Intern. Med. J., 33: 257-259.
18. Anderson GJM.(2002) Shaping the future: using voice of the customer methodology to develop inhaler design. In: Respiratory Drug Delivery VIII (Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J et al., eds), Vol. 1. Tucson, Arizona: Serentec Press. pp 179-188.
19. Buhler C. (1996) Approach to the analysis of user requirements in assistive technology. Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 17: 187-192.
20. Liljegren E, Osvalder A-L. (2004) Cognitive engineering methods as usability evaluation tools for medical equipment. Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 34: 49-62.
21. Debanne SM, Petot GJ, Li J et al. (2001) On the use of surrogate respondents for controls in a case-control study of Alzheimer’s disease. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc., 49: 980-984.
22. Keywood K. (2003) Gatekeepers, proxies, advocates? The evolving role of carers under mental health and mental incapacity law reforms. J. Soc. Welfare Fam. Law 25: 355-368.
23. Chiu CC, Vicente KJ, Buffo-Sequeira I et al. (2004) Usability assessment of pacemaker programmers. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol., 27: 1388-1398.
24. Hayes CM. (2003) Surrogate decision-making to end lifesustaining treatments for incapacitated adults. J. Hosp. Palliat. Nurs., 5: 91-102.
25. Miettinen R, Hasu M. (2002) Articulating user needs in collaborative design: towards an activity-theoretical approach. CSCW 11: 129-151.
26. Hummel M, van Rossum W, Omta O et al. (2001) Types and timing of inter-organizational communication in new product development. Creativ. Innovat. Manag., 10: 225-233.
27. Gotzsche PC, Liberati A, Torri V et al. (1996) Beware of surrogate outcome measures. Int. J. Tech. Assess. Health Care 12: 238-246.