Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating methods for engaging children in healthcare technology design

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Health and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Examples of user involvement can be found throughout healthcare literature. This extends to the design and development of healthcare technology where the involvement of users has been found to positively impact the quality and safety of products. However, there is currently little known about which methods are the most appropriate for involving children in technology development. The research applied and developed a framework to guide the use of methods in the design and development of healthcare technology for upper limb rehabilitation in children with cerebral palsy. Utilising an assessment framework to explore the suitability of four interview methods for involving children in the design and development of healthcare technology, research was carried out in primary schools in the United Kingdom. The research team i) used the assessment framework to guide the collection of information for comparing methods for involving children; ii) considered additional criteria for inclusion in the framework; and iii) gathered observations and data to comment on the criteria in relation to the four interview methods. Children were able to participate in all four interview methods, although further consideration is needed to identify how children with disabilities can be involved in design activities forming part of interview methods. Differences were found between the methods relating to their robustness, reliability, validity, efficiency, enjoyment and cost. The involvement of participants with a disability highlighted the need to develop new methods that support their inclusion in healthcare technology design work. The assessment framework applied in this research was useful to inform the comparison of methods and represents a step towards a more unified approach to understanding how best to capture the perspectives of children to develop technology that meets their needs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The decision to use the board game method stemmed from a meeting with the authors from a conference article outlining the use of a similar method to involve residents in the design of a low security mental health unit [33]

  2. The acceptability of a system involves both social and practical acceptability. The practical acceptability of a system is defined by its usefulness through containing usability and utility. Social acceptability refers to the aesthetic characteristics of a system [34].

  3. When designing a system, the entire user experience should be considered [35]. Such considerations should carry through into technology designed for children, where factors such as textural preferences have been mostly ignored. It has been stated that although visual information may provide valuable information, tactile input is essential to explore because of its key role in grasp, control and manipulation of objects using the hand [36].

References

  1. Department of Health. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. London: Department of Health; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wallcroft J. The person in health care policy development. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(2):347–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, et al. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health C. 2012;24(1):28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shah S, Robinson I. User involvement in healthcare technology development and assessment: structured literature review. IJHCQA. 2006;19(6):500–15.

    Google Scholar 

  5. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Medical devices - application of usability engineering to medical devices. Geneva: International Organisation for Standardisation; 2008. p. 62366.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gagnon M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, et al. Introducing patient perspective in health technology assessment at the local level. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Money A, Barnett J, Kuljis J, et al. The role of the user within the medical device design and development process: medical device manufacturers’ perspectives. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11:15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Galway L, O’Neill S, Donnelly M, Nugent C, McClean S, Scotney B. Stakeholder involvement guidelines to improve the design process of assistive technology: lesson from the development of the MPVS system. Health Technol. 2013. doi:10.1007/s12553-013-0048-5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shah S, Robinson I. Medical device technologies: who is the user? Int J Health Tech Manage. 2008;9(2):181–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Allsop M, Holt R, Levesley M, Bhakta B. The engagement of children with disabilities in health-related technology design processes: identifying methodology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shah S., Robinson I, AlShawi S. Developing medical device technologies from users’ perspectives: A theoretical framework for involving users in the development process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(4):514–521.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Action for sick children. Involving children and young people. NHS Centre for Involvement. 2009. http://actionforsickchildren.org/doc.asp?ID=8&Doc=/documents/children%20guide.pdf. Accessed 01 October 2012.

  13. McDonagh J, Bateman B. ‘Nothing about us without us’: considerations for research involving young people. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2011. doi:10.1136/adc.2010.197947.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Söderbäck M, Coyne I, Harder M. The importance of including both a child perspective and the child’s perspective within health care settings to provide truly child-centred care. J Child Healthc. 2011;15(2):99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Not just a phase: a guide to the participation of children and young people in health services. London: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Confederation NHS. Involving children and young people in health services. London: NHS Confederation; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Read J, Markopoulos P, Parés N et al. Child computer interaction. Proceedings of CHI EA ′08 CHI ′08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems 2008;2419–2422.

  18. Iversen O, Brodersen C. Building a BRIDGE between children and users: a socio-cultural approach to child–computer interaction. Cogn Technol Work. 2008;10(2):83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zaman B. Introducing contextual laddering to evaluate the likeability of games with children. Cogn Technol Work. 2008;10(2):107–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Druin A. Cooperative inquiry: developing new technologies for children with children. Proceedings of ACM CHI 99 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1999;223–230.

  21. Mazzone E. Requirements gathering in designing technology for children. IDC ′07 Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Interaction design and children 2007;197–200.

  22. Bekker M, Beusmans J, Keyson D, et al. KidReporter: a user requirements gathering technique for designing with children. Interact Comput. 2002;15(2):187–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dindler C, Eriksson E, Iversen O. Mission from Mars: a method for exploring user requirements for children in a narrative space. IDC ′05 Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children 2005;40–47.

  24. Markopoulos P, Bekker M. On the assessment of usability testing methods for children. Interact Comput. 2003;15:227–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sluis-Thiescheffer R, Bekker M, Eggen J, et al. Development and application of a framework for comparing early design methods for young children. Interact Comput. 2011;23(1):70–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Weightman A, Preston N, Holt, et al. Engaging children in healthcare technology design: developing rehabilitation technology for children with cerebral palsy. J Eng Design. 2008. doi:10.1080/09544820802441092.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Allsop M, Holt R, Gallagher J, et al. The involvement of primary schools in the design of healthcare. In: Langdon P, Clarkson J, Robinson P, editors. Designing inclusive interactions. London: Spinger-Verlag; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  28. UK Government. (2005). The disability discrimination act (2005). Office of Public Sector Information. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050013_en_1. Accessed 01 October 2012.

  29. Druin A. A place called childhood. Interactions. 1996;3(1):17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hanna L, Risden K, Alexander K. Guidelines for usability testing with children. Interactions. 1997;4(5):9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Department for Education and Employment. The national curriculum: handbook for primary teachers in England. London: Department for Education and Employment; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wechsler D. Manual for the Wechsler intelligence scale for children. 4th ed. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lamey B, Bristow C. The design of a mental healthcare low secure unit: the meaningful involvement of service user in the design process. Proceedings of INCLUDE 2007, London, UK.

  34. Keates S, Clarkson P. Countering design exclusion: bridging the gap between usability and accessibility. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2003;2:215–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vredenburg K. Designing the total user experience at IBM. Int J Hum-Comput Int. 2002;14:275–558.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Eliasson A. Comparing tests of tactile sensibility: aspects relevant to testing children with spastic hemiplegia. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2002;44:604–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wong D, Baker C. Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs. 1988;14(1):9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Streiner D, Norman G. Health Measurement Scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Airey S, Plowman L, Connolly D et al. Rating children’s enjoyment of toys, games and media. 3rd World Congress of International Toy Research on Toys, Games and Media, London 2002.

  41. Punch S. Research with children: the same or different from research with adults. Childhood. 2002;9(3):321–41.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Allsop M, Gallagher J, Holt R, et al. Involving children in the development of assistive technology devices. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(2):148–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Westendrop M, Houwen S, Hartman E, Visscher C. Are gross motor skills and sports participation related in children with intellectual disabilities? Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32:1147–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Patel H, Blades M, Andrade J. Children’s incidental recall of colour information. Brit J Dev Psychol. 1999;17(4):537–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ling J, Blades M. Further evidence for automatic encoding of colour by children and adults. Brit J Dev Psychol. 2002;20(4):537–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Staniszewska S, Adebajo A, Barber R, et al. Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: the case for measuring impact. Int J Consum Stud. 2012;35(6):628–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. McLaughlin H. Involving young service users as co-researchers: possibilities, benefits and costs. Brit J Soc Work. 2006;36:1395–410.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  48. Fritzley H, Lee K. Do young children always say yes to yes-no questions? A metadevelopmental study of the affirmation bias. Child Dev. 2003;74(5):1297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank fellow researchers for their time and contribution to the preparation and delivery of the research visits in schools. Special thanks to Justin Gallagher, Andrew Weightman, Jenifer Sutherland, Anne Whaley and Pete Culmer. The authors would also like to thank Bipin Bhakta and Martin Levesley for their guidance in the design of the research.

Ethics approval for this research was provided by the University of Leeds research ethics committee.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, 101 Clarendon Road, Leeds, LS2 9LJ, UK

    Matthew J. Allsop

  2. Institute of Engineering Systems and Design, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

    Raymond J. Holt

Authors
  1. Matthew J. Allsop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raymond J. Holt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew J. Allsop.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allsop, M.J., Holt, R.J. Evaluating methods for engaging children in healthcare technology design. Health Technol. 3, 295–307 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0062-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0062-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation