Co-Designing for Care: Craft and Wearable Wellbeing

Part of the Health, Technology and Society book series (HTE)


This chapter examines the design of wearable medical devices. Design is understood to be a process and output that concerns the form, function and the meaning of the designed object. However, participation in the design process by users can actively influence the output. Involvement in the co-creation of personal medical devices (PMDs) contributes towards patients’ wellbeing and increases their adherence to device usage. The chapter takes a case study approach to the design of orthotics in which patients are involved as co-designers, considering the solutions crafted by traditional and digital technologies within the framework of a biopsychosocial model of healthcare. The chapter concludes with insights into the benefits to patients and healthcare services from orthotics conceived and worn as desirable objects.


  1. Adamson, G. (2007). Thinking through craft. Oxford: Berg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamson, G. (2010). The craft reader. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  3. Andiamo. (2016). Andiamo user-centred children’s orthotics. Available at: [Accessed May 01, 2016].
  4. Associate Parliamentary Limb Loss Group. (2011). Patient led orthotic services with the support of this users charter (Orthotics Charter). CES Available at: [Accessed May 10, 2016].
  5. Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2011). The future of identity, report. Commissioned by the UK’s Government Office for Science. Available at: [Accessed December 15, 2015].
  6. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, R. (2001). Designing and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler-Kisber, L., & Poldma, T. (2010). The power of visual approaches in qualitative inquiry: The use of collage making and concept mapping in experiential. Journal of Research Practice, 6(2), 18.Google Scholar
  9. Chapman, J. (2005). Emotionally durable design. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  10. De Mul, J. (2011). Redesigning. In B. Van Abel, L. Evers, R. Klaassen, & P. Troxler (Eds.), Open design now (pp. 34–39). Amsterdam: BIS.Google Scholar
  11. Dreyfus, H. (1967). Designing for people. New York NY: Paragraphic Books.Google Scholar
  12. EC. (2001). Guidelines for the classification of medical devices. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. Egger, J. W. (2013). Biopsychosocial Medicine and Health – the body mind unity theory and its dynamic definition of health. Psychologische Medizin, 24(1), 24–29.Google Scholar
  14. Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, New Series, 196(4286), 129–136.Google Scholar
  15. Faulkner, A. (2008). Medical technology into healthcare and society: A sociology of devices, innovation and governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Fess, E. E., Gettle, K. S., Philips, C. A., & Janson, J. R. (2004). Hand and upper extremity splinting: Principles and methods. St. Louis, MI: Mosby Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Fotiadis, D. I., Glaros, C., & Likas, A. (2006). Wearable medical devices. Wiley Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering. Chichester: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  18. Fox, N. (2012). The body. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Frisby, D., & Featherstone, M. (1997). Simmel on culture: Selected writings. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Glanze, W. D., Anderson, K., & Anderson, L. E. (1990). Mosby’s medical, nursing, and allied health dictionary. St. Louis, MI: Mosby.Google Scholar
  21. Global Harmonization Task Force. (2005). Information Document Concerning the Definition of the Term “Medical Device” SG1/NO29R11. [Accessed 12th January 2016].
  22. Golubnitschaja, O., Kinkorova, J., & Costigliola, V. (2014). Predictive, preventive and as the hardcore of ‘Horizon 2020’: EPMA position paper. EPMA Journal, 5(6). Available from [Accessed August 12, 2016].
  23. Gruman, J., & Smith, C. W. (2009). Why the journal of participatory medicine? Journal of Participatory Medicine., 1(1), 2.Google Scholar
  24. HEC (Health Economics Consortium). (2009). Orthotic service in the NHS: Improving service provision. York: University of York.Google Scholar
  25. Huber, M., Knottnerus, J. A., Green, L., van der Horst, H., Jadad, A. R., Kromhout, D., et al. (2011). How should we define health? British Medical Journal, 343, d4163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, M. (1990). The body in the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jones, P. (2013). Design for care: Innovating healthcare experience. New York: Rosenfeld Media.Google Scholar
  28. Keränen, K., Dusch, B., Ojasalo, K., & Moultrie, J. (2013). Co-creation patterns : Insights from a collaborative service tool. In the Proceedings of The Cambridge Academic Design Management Conference. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that “is making sense (of things)”. Design Issues, 5(2), 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lambert, S. (1993). Form follows function. Design in the 20th century. London: Victoria and Albert Museum.Google Scholar
  32. Leavy, P. (2015). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Llewellyn, D. (2010). The first lady of mulberry walk. Leicester: Troubadour.Google Scholar
  34. Mazumdar, P. (2014). Understanding surfaces. On jewellery and identity. Lecture (March 16, 2014) at Die Neue Sammlung Pinakothek Der Moderne Munich, in collaboration with Arnoldsche Art Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. McDonagh, D. (2006). Empathic design: Emerging design research methodologies. PhD dissertation. Loughborough: Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  36. McDonagh, D., Thomas, J., Chen, S., He, J. J., Hong, Y. S., Kim, Y., Zhang, Z., et al. (2009). Empathic : Disability + relevant design. In the Proceedings of 8th European Academy of Design Conference April. 310. Aberdeen: The Robert Gordon University.Google Scholar
  37. McKee, P. R., & Rivard, A. (2011). Biopsychosocial approach to orthotic intervention. Journal of Hand Therapy: Official Journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists, 24(2), 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Metcalf, B. (2002). Contemporary craft: A brief overview. In J. Johnson (Ed.), Exploring contemporary craft: History, theory & critical writing. Toronto: Coach House Books and Harbourfront Center.Google Scholar
  39. Miller, D. (2010). Stuff. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  40. Mullen, P. D. (1997). Compliance becomes concordance. BMJ, 314(7082), 691.Google Scholar
  41. National Institutes of Health. (2008). Biennial report of the national institutes of health, fiscal years, 2006–2007. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: [Accessed May 10, 2016].
  42. NHS England. (2015). Improving the quality of orthotics services in England. London: NHS England.Google Scholar
  43. Orthotics Campaign. (2014). Factors that affect the patient experience of NHS orthotics care ONLINE. Available at: [Accessed November 25, 2016].
  44. Orthotics Campaign. (2016). Personal communication. February 11.Google Scholar
  45. Parsons, G. (2016). The philosophy of design. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  46. Paterson, A. (2013). Digitisation of the splinting process: Exploration and evaluation of a computer aided approach to support additive manufacture. Doctoral Dissertation. Google Scholar
  47. Polanyi, M. (2002). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Pullin, G. (2009). Design meets disability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Risatti, H. (2009). A theory of craft: Function and aesthetic expression. Charlotte, CA: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  50. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design: CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
  51. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Amsterdam: BIS publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  53. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Skinner, D. (Ed.). (2013). Contemporary jewelry in perspective. New York: Lark Jewelry & Beading.Google Scholar
  55. Sleeswijk Visser, F. S. (2009). Bringing the Everyday Life of People into Design. PhD Dissertation. Delft: TU Delft.Google Scholar
  56. Sleeswijk Visser, F. S., Stappers, P. J., van der Lugt, R., & Sanders, E. B. (2005). Contextmapping: Experiences from practice. CoDesign, 1(2), 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sullivan, G. (2006). Artefacts as evidence within changing contexts. Working Papers in Art and Design 4, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  58. Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2012). Product design and development (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  59. Utterback, J., Vedin, B.-A., Alvarez, E., Ekman, S., Sanderson, S. W., Tether, B., et al. (2006). Design-inspired innovation. London: Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walsh, V. (1996). Design, innovation and the boundaries of the firm. Research Policy, 25(4), 502–529.Google Scholar
  61. Watkins, D. (1999). Design sourcebook: Jewellery. London: New Holland.Google Scholar
  62. Weightman, D., & McDonagh, D. (2003). People are doing it for themselves. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces. 23–26 June. Pittsburgh USA, pp. 34–39.Google Scholar
  63. White, H., & Steel, E. (2007). Agents of change: From collection to connection. The Design Journal, 10(2), 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. World Health Organization. (2003). Medical device regulations: Global overview and guiding principles. Geneva: WHO Press.Google Scholar
  65. Yair, K., Press, M., & Tomes, A. (2001). Crafting competitive advantage: Crafts knowledge as a strategic resource. Design Studies, 22(4), 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK
  2. 2.London Metropolitan UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations