Advertisement

Designing Solutions for Healthcare System Problems - LUFT Incentive Spirometer: Study of Case

  • Flávia Azevedo
  • Giuseppe Amado
  • Luciana Cruz
  • Nathalia Pacheco
  • Nathália Pompeu
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

This paper has the goal of demonstrating the development of a design process based on the concepts of ergonomics, interdisciplinary and participatory design in order to aid the respiratory physiotherapy treatment of children with acquired and congenital visual disability. This process was conducted in a referential physiotherapy treatment center in Niterói city, Brazil. The public Brazilian healthcare system has several problems to afford medical equipment to public hospitals and physiotherapy centers. Thus, this kind of facilities is hardly accessible for the majority of population, specially failing to attend the needs of the visually disabled. Therefore, providing an affordable product truly efficient to be used in the respiratory treatment for children with visual disability was a significantly relevant goal. Through an ergonomics approach with participation of many specialists from different fields of knowledge and user-centered design concepts, it was possible to design a facilitating tool to stimulate a playful and more active attitude from the blind child patient during the treatment. The process’ development consisted of systematic observation, interview, brainstorming sessions and meetings with experts from several different disciplines such as physiotherapy, physics, engineering, psychology and industrial design. Finally, a respiratory physiotherapy equipment was designed and tested with the final user.

Keywords

Participatory design Interdisciplinary Healthcare Visually blind children Visual disability Medical equipment Respiratory physiotherapy 

References

  1. Abras C, Maloney-Krichmar D, Preece J (2004) User-centered design. In: Bainbridge W (ed) Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarenga AT, Philippi Jr A, Sommeran A, Alvarez AM, Fernandez V (2011) Histórico, fundamentos filosóficos e teórico-metodológicos da interdisciplinaridade. In: Philippi Jr A, Silva AJ (eds) Interdisciplinaridade em Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Manole, BarueriGoogle Scholar
  3. Associação Brasileira da Indústria, Artigos e Equipamentos Médicos, Odontológicos, Hospitalares e de Laboratórios – ABIMO. http://www.abimo.org.br. Accessed 20 Sept 2017
  4. Cardoso R (2012) Design para um mundo complexo. Cosac Naify, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  5. Center for disease control and prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/disability-strategies.html. Accessed 20 Sept 2017
  6. Children: a longitudinal study. In: Lewis V, Collins GM (eds) Blindness and psychological development in young children. BPS Books, Leicester, pp 69–87Google Scholar
  7. Schuler D, Namioka A (eds) (1993) Participatory design: principles and practices. Lawrence Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  8. Departamento de Comercio dos Estados Unidos da América – United States Department of Commerce (USDOC). http://www.commerce.gov/. Accessed 15 Sept 2017
  9. Eason K (1987) Information technology and organizational change. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Gregory J (2003) Scandinavian approaches to participatory design. Int J Eng Educ Oslo 19(1)Google Scholar
  11. Haines HM, Wilson JR, Vink P, Koningsveld E (2000) Validating a framework for participatory ergonomics. TNO, Hoofddorp, R2003970/4020053Google Scholar
  12. Hassanein E (2014) Inclusion. Disabil Cult.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-923-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobs HH, Ackerman DB, Hannah J, Menfredonia W, Perkins DN (1989) Interdisciplinary curriculum: design and implementation. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1250 N. Pitt Street, Alexandria, VA 22314Google Scholar
  14. Moraes A, Mont’alavão C (2012) Ergonomia: Conceitos e Aplicações, 4th edn. 2ab, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  15. Oborne DJ (1995) Ergonomics at work, 3rd edn. Wiley, London. 442 pGoogle Scholar
  16. Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H (2002) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Preisler G (1997) Social and emotional development of blind children: a longitudinal study. In: Lewis V, Collis GM (eds) Blindness and psychological development in young children. The British Psychological Society, London, pp 116–129Google Scholar
  18. Whitehead M (1992) The concepts and principles of equity and health. Int J Health Serv 22(3):429–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. World Health Organization (2016). http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs352/en/. Accessed 03 Sept 2017
  20. World Health Organization (2014). http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs352/en/. Accessed 03 Sept 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fluminense Federal University - UFFNiteróiBrazil

Personalised recommendations