Advertisement

A Design-led Research Approach to Contextual Evaluation of Socio-psychological Factors in the Development of Telehealth Devices

  • Anna Mieczakowski
  • James King
  • Ben Fehnert
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8515)

Abstract

Well-designed medical devices that embrace the socio-psychological needs of patients lead to increased customer acceptance, sustained use, improved safety and cost-effectiveness for both the professional and lay users. This paper proposes a new iterative design-led research approach for collecting and evaluating socio-psychological contextual user experience of patients and care providers in the telehealth development process. This approach, which has been applied to a multi-country development of a medical device, is based around the usage of a telehealth prototype from early stages of the design process. This allows for ‘mini’ elements of all design stages to be addressed in each individual stage to ensure the capture of contextual data from users about usage patterns, feelings and impact on the patient-clinician care relationship.

Keywords

Medical Devices User Experience Design-led Research Process Contextual Inquiry Socio-psychological Contextual Factors Telehealth 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization (WHO): Medical Devices: Managing the Mismatch: An Outcome of the Priority Medical Devices Project. World Health Organization Report (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14971: Medical Devices: Application of Risk Management to Medical Devices, Geneva, Switzerland (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tice, J.A., Helfand, M., Feldman, M.D.: Clinical Evidence for Medical Devices: Regulatory Processes Focusing on Europe and the United States of America. The World Health Organization Report, Geneva (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 62366: Medical Devices: Application of Usability Engineering to Medical Devices, Geneva, Switzerland (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Medical Devices: Home Use Devices, US Food and Drug Administration (2012) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    World Health Organization (WHO): Primary Health Care (Now More Than Ever). The WHO Report (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lang, A.R., Martin, J.L., Sharples, S., Crowe, J.A.: The effect of design on the usability and real world effectiveness of medical devices: A case study with adolescent users. Applied Ergonomics 44, 799–810 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curfman, G.D., Redberg, R.F.: Medical devices: Balancing regulation and innovation. The New England Journal of Medicine 365, 975–977 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Medical Devices Directive: Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. European Commission (1993) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 21CFR 820.30: Quality System Regulation: Design Controls (2013) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Commission: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Medical Devices, and Amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Understanding Barriers to Medical Device Quality. FDA (2011) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kramer, D.B., Baker, M., Ransford, B., Molina-Markham, A., Stewart, Q., Fu, K., Reynolds, M.R.: Security and Privacy Qualities of Medical Devices: An Analysis of FDA Postmarket Surveillance. PLoS ONE 7, e40200 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): “23andMe, Inc. 11/22/13” (2012), http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/2013/ucm376296.htm
  15. 15.
    Gurses, A.P., Ozok, A.A., Pronovost, P.J.: Time to accelerate integration of human factors and ergonomics in patient safety. BMJ Quality and Satefy 21, 347–351 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): General Human Factors Information and Resources: What is Human Factors/Usability Engineering? (2013) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    NHS National Patient Safety Agency: Design for patient safety: User testing in the development of medical devices (2010) ISBN: 978-1-906624-11-8Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Applying Human Factors and Usability Engineering to Optimise Medical Device Design. US Department of Health and Human Services (2011) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bitterman, N.: Design of medical devices: A home perspective. European Journal of Internal Medicine 22, 39–42 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    May-Russell, S.: Medical devices designed with patients in mind. European Industrial Pharmacy 14, 13–15 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martin, J.L., Norris, B.J., Murphy, E., Crowe, J.A.: Medical device development: The challenge for ergonomics. Applied Ergonomics 39, 271–283 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Waterson, P.E., Anderson, J.: Bridging the Research Practice Gap in Healthcare Human Factors and Ergonomics. In: Ergonomics & Human Factors Conference, Cambridge, UK, April 15-18, pp. 15–18 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Demirbilek, O., Sener, B.: Product design, semantics and emotional response. Ergonomics 46 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M.: Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology-Psychologie Canadienne 49, 182–185 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84, 191–215 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vallerand, R.J., Reid, G.: On the causal effects of perceived competence on intrinsic motivation: A test of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology 6, 94–102 (1984)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Marmot Review: Fair Society Healthy Lives. Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post-2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Langer, E.J., Rodin, J.: The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34, 191–198 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ogden, J., Daniells, E., Barnett, J.: When is choice a good thing? An experimental study of the impact of choice on patient outcomes. Psychology, Health & Medicine 14, 34–47 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Huang, Y.H., Lei, W., Junqi, S.: When do objects become more attractive? The individual and interactive effects of choice and ownership on object evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35, 713–722 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Csikszentmihályi, M.: Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Perennial, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Durik, A.M., Harackiewicz, J.M.: Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: Coherence, concordance, and achievement orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39, 378–385 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thomson, R., Martin, J.L., Sharples, S.: The psychosocial impact of home use medical devices on the lives of older people: A qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research 13, 1–8 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare (MATCH) (2014), http://www.match.ac.uk/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Mieczakowski
    • 1
  • James King
    • 1
  • Ben Fehnert
    • 1
  1. 1.Science Practice Ltd. & Eclipse Experience Ltd. (SPEE Ltd.)LondonUK

Personalised recommendations