Systems thinking and designerly tools for medical device design in engineering curricula.

Medical device design co-design human factors engineering new product development participatory techniques systems thinking

Journal

Health systems (Basingstoke, England)
ISSN: 2047-6965
Titre abrégé: Health Syst (Basingstoke)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101602681

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
medline: 16 5 2022
pubmed: 16 5 2022
entrez: 18 1 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

In this paper we focus on medical device development (MDD) in Industrial Design Engineering (IDE) academia. We want to find which methods our MDD-students currently use, where our guidance has shortcomings and where it brings added value. We have analysed 19 master and 3 doctoral MDD-theses in our IDE curriculum. The evaluation focusses around four main themes: 1) regulatory 2) testing 3) patient-centricity and 4) systemic design. Regulatory aspects and medical testing procedures seem to be disregarded frequently. We assume this is because of a lack of MDD experience and the small thesis timeframe. Furthermore, many students applied medical-oriented systemic tools, which enhances multiperspectivism. However, we found an important lack in the translation to the List of Specifications and to business models of these medical devices. Finally, students introduced various participatory techniques, but seem to struggle with implementing this in the setting of evidence-based medicine.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
In this paper we focus on medical device development (MDD) in Industrial Design Engineering (IDE) academia. We want to find which methods our MDD-students currently use, where our guidance has shortcomings and where it brings added value.
Methods UNASSIGNED
We have analysed 19 master and 3 doctoral MDD-theses in our IDE curriculum. The evaluation focusses around four main themes: 1) regulatory 2) testing 3) patient-centricity and 4) systemic design.
Results UNASSIGNED
Regulatory aspects and medical testing procedures seem to be disregarded frequently. We assume this is because of a lack of MDD experience and the small thesis timeframe. Furthermore, many students applied medical-oriented systemic tools, which enhances multiperspectivism. However, we found an important lack in the translation to the List of Specifications and to business models of these medical devices. Finally, students introduced various participatory techniques, but seem to struggle with implementing this in the setting of evidence-based medicine.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38235301
doi: 10.1080/20476965.2022.2072778
pii: 2072778
pmc: PMC10791094
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

461-471

Informations de copyright

© 2022 The Operational Research Society.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Auteurs

Max Schoepen (M)

Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Ewout Vansteenkiste (E)

Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Werner De Gersem (W)

Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Jan Detand (J)

Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Classifications MeSH