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

IF 1.2 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES

Health Systems Pub Date : 2022-05-16 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20476965.2022.2072778

Max Schoepen, Ewout Vansteenkiste, Werner De Gersem, Jan Detand

{"title":"Systems thinking and designerly tools for medical device design in engineering curricula.","authors":"Max Schoepen, Ewout Vansteenkiste, Werner De Gersem, Jan Detand","doi":"10.1080/20476965.2022.2072778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: 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: 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: 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.","PeriodicalId":44699,"journal":{"name":"Health Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10791094/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20476965.2022.2072778","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: 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: 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: 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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

工程课程中医疗器械设计的系统思维与设计工具

背景：本文主要研究工业设计工程（IDE）学术界对医疗器械（MDD）的研究。我们想找到MDD学生目前使用的方法，我们的指导在哪里有缺点，在哪里能带来附加值。方法：我们分析了IDE课程中19篇硕士和3篇博士MDD论文。评估围绕四个主要主题：1）监管2）测试3）以患者为中心和4）系统设计。结果：监管方面和医疗检测程序似乎经常被忽视。我们认为这是因为缺乏MDD经验和较小的刺激范围。此外，许多学生应用了以医学为导向的系统工具，这增强了多视角性。然而，我们发现在这些医疗器械的规格清单和商业模式的翻译中存在重要不足。最后，学生们介绍了各种参与性技术，但似乎很难在循证医学的环境中实现这一点。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Health Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

11.10%

发文量