Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:29:01.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF PEDIATRIC UPPER LIMB PROSTHESES: QUALITATIVE METHODS AND PROTOTYPING

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2017

Tara Sims Open the ORCID record for Tara Sims [Opens in a new window] ,
Andy Cranny ,
Cheryl Metcalf ,
Paul Chappell  and
Maggie Donovan-Hall
Tara Sims
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, University of Brightont.sims@brighton.ac.uk
Andy Cranny
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Southampton
Cheryl Metcalf
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton
Paul Chappell
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Southampton
Maggie Donovan-Hall
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The study aims to develop an understanding of the views of children and adolescents, parents, and professionals on upper limb prosthetic devices to develop and improve device design. Previous research has found that children are dissatisfied with prostheses but has relied heavily on parent proxy reports and quantitative measures (such as questionnaires) to explore their views.

Methods: Thirty-four participants (eight children aged 8–15 years with upper limb difference, nine parents, eight prosthetists, and nine occupational therapists) contributed to the development of new devices through the BRIDGE methodology of participatory design, using focus groups and interviews.

Results: The study identified areas for improving prostheses from the perspective of children and adolescents, developed prototypes based on these and gained feedback on the prototypes from the children and other stakeholders (parents and professionals) of paediatric upper limb prostheses. Future device development needs to focus on ease of use, versatility, appearance, and safety.

Conclusions: This study has demonstrated that children and adolescents can and should be involved as equal partners in the development of daily living equipment and that rapid prototyping (three-dimensional printing or additive manufacturing), used within a participatory design framework, can be a useful tool for facilitating this.

Keywords

Prosthesis designPrintingThree-dimensionalQualitative researchChildPatient participation
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 6 , 2017 , pp. 629 - 637
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Smith, DG. Congenital limb deficiencies and acquired amputations in childhood, part 3. In motion. 2006;16.Google Scholar
2. Shida-Tokeshi, J, Bagley, A, Molitor, F, et al. Predictors of continued prosthetic wear in children with upper extremity prostheses. J Prosthet Orthot. 2005;17:119–124.Google Scholar
3. Routhier, F, Vincent, C, Morissette, MJ, Desaulniers, L. Clinical results of an investigation of paediatric upper limb myoelectric prosthesis fitting at the Quebec Rehabilitation Institute. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001;25:119–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Wagner, LV, Bagley, AM, James, MA. Reasons for prosthetic rejection by children with unilateral congenital transverse forearm total deficiency. J Prosthet Orthot. 2007;19:51–54.Google Scholar
5. Biddiss, EA, Chau, TT. Upper-limb prosthetics: Critical factors in device abandonment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86:977–987.Google Scholar
6. Pylatiuk, C, Schulz, S, Döderlein, L. Results of an Internet survey of myoelectric prosthetic hand users. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31:362–370.Google Scholar
7. Donovan-Hall, M. Supporting the positive development and well-being of children and young people with prostheses: The influence of the appearance of the prosthesis and individual choice. Big Lottery Final Report. 2010;RG1/010120846.Google Scholar
8. Allsop, MJ, Holt, RJ, Levesley, MC, Bhakta, B. The engagement of children with disabilities in health-related technology design processes: Identifying methodology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5:1–13.Google Scholar
9. Sinclair, R, Franklin, A. Young people's participation: Quality Protects Research Briefing, No. 3. London: Department of Health; 2000.Google Scholar
10. Nesset, V, Large, A. Children in the information technology design process: A review of theories and their applications. Libr Inf Sci Res. 2004;26:140-61.Google Scholar
11. Light, L, Page, R, Curran, J, Pitkin, L. Children's ideas for the design of AAC assistive technologies for young children with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2007;23:274–287.Google Scholar
12. Rigby, P, Ryan, S, From, W, Walczak, E, Jutai, J. A client-centred approach to developing assistive technology with children. Occup Ther Int. 1996;3:67-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Cooke, GA. Involving children in planning healthcare: The Derby experience. Curr Paediatr. 2004;14:246–251.Google Scholar
14. Weightman, APH, Preston, N, Holt, R, et al. Engaging children in healthcare technology design, developing rehabilitation technology for children with cerebral palsy. J Eng Des. 2010;21:579–600.Google Scholar
15. Atkins, D, Heard, DCY, Donovan, WH. Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. J Prosthet Orthot. 1996;8:2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Biddiss, EA, Beaton, D Chau TT. Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007; 2:346–357.Google Scholar
17. Shah, SGS, Robinson, I. Medical device technologies: Who is the user? Int J Healthc Technol Manag. 2008;9:181–197.Google Scholar
18. Shah, SG, Robinson, I. User involvement in medical device technology development and assessment: Structured literature review. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 2006;19:500–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Nichols, PJ, Rogers, EE, Clark, MS, Stamp, WG. The acceptance and rejection of prostheses by children with multiple congenital limb deformities. Artif Limbs. 1968;12:1–13.Google Scholar
20. Postema, K, van der Donk, V, van Limbeek, J, Rijken, RA. Prosthesis rejection in children with a unilateral congenital arm defect. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13:243–249.Google Scholar
21. Rycroft-Malone, J. Formal consensus, the development of a national clinical guideline. Qual Health Care. 2001;10:238–244.Google Scholar
22. Resnik, L. Development and testing of new upper-limb prosthetic devices: Research designs for usability testing. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48:697–706.Google Scholar
23. Peerdeman, B, Boere, D, Witteveen, H, et al. Myoelectric forearm prostheses, State of the art from a user-centred perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48:719–738.Google Scholar
24. Glushko, A. Participatory design in healthcare: Patients and doctors can bridge critical information gaps. UX Magazine. 2013; 1028.Google Scholar
25. Iversen, OS, Brodersen, C. Bridging the gap between users and children - A socio-cultural approach to designing with children. Cognition, technology and work: Special issue on child-computer interaction methodological research. 2007;9.Google Scholar
26. Snyder, RG, Spencer, ML, Owings, CL, Schneider, LW. Anthropometry of U.S. infants and children. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc; 1975.Google Scholar
27. Sims, T. A participatory design approach to developing upper limb prostheses for children and young people (unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Southampton, UK; 2014.Google Scholar
28. Crow, I. The power of research. In: Burton, D, editor. Research training for social scientists: A handbook for postgraduate researchers. London: Sage; 2000:68–80.Google Scholar
29. Knafl, K, Breitmaye, B.Triangulation in qualitative research: Issues of conceptual clarity and purpose. In: Morse, J, editor. Qualitative nursing research. Rockville, MD: Aspen; 1989:193–203.Google Scholar