Tara Sims

Participatory design of pediatric upper limb prostheses: qualitative methods and prototyping

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.

Participatory design of healthcare technology with children

Purpose There are many frameworks and methods for involving children in design research. Human-Computer Interaction provides rich methods for involving children when designing technologies. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach This paper examines various approaches to involving children in design, considering whether users view children as study objects or active participants. Findings The BRIDGE method is a sociocultural approach to product design that views children as active participants, enabling them to contribute to the design process as competent and resourceful partners. An example is provided, in which BRIDGE was successfully applied to developing upper limb prostheses with children. Originality/value Approaching design in this way can provide children with opportunities to develop social, academic and design skills and to develop autonomy.

Piloting the Focus Group Method: Preparing for a Participatory Design Study With Children and Young People

My chosen PhD methodology (the BRIDGE approach to participatory design) required me to conduct focus groups with children and young people with limb difference to involve them in developing prototype prostheses. Although experienced in working with disabled children, I was a novice in this research method. I took the decision, therefore, to learn about and improve my skills in this method by carrying out a pilot focus group. This case presents my reflection on the experience of conducting a pilot focus group and the valuable lessons I learned. The pilot focus group was carried out with six children and focused on designing a television program (in order to be based on product design to mirror the questioning route for the main study). Many of the decisions I made in designing the pilot focus group were based on theoretical study of conducting focus groups. However, the practical experience of carrying out the pilot study taught me additional lessons: analysis of activities is important in the planning process, age of participants and group dynamics must be carefully considered, and practical issues (such as sound recording) can impact the quality of data collected.

Does “mentoring” offer effective support to autistic adults? A mixed-methods pilot study

The Research Autism Cygnet Mentoring project was a two-year pilot study, completed in 2016, which aimed to develop, trial and evaluate a mentoring scheme designed with input from autistic people, their families and supporters. The paper aims to discuss these issues.,The mentoring scheme involved 12 matched pairs (mentor/mentee) meeting once per week for one hour, over a six-month period. All mentors attended a training day, led by the principles of personal construct theory and an emancipatory research ethos. The project and training involved significant involvement of autistic people in both its design and delivery.,Participants on the autism spectrum found their mentoring experience very helpful in enabling them to progress towards self-identified goals, and mentees felt empowered by the person-centred ethos and the methods employed on the project. However, a number of aspects of the mentoring project have been identified that require further investigation, including: caution over offering mentoring without formal structures, boundary setting, supervision, flexibility and the matching of mentees with mentors.,The project has highlighted the potential benefits of time-limited goal-orientated mentoring and the negligible evidence base underpinning current mentoring practice with adults on the autism spectrum. In order for the project to realise its emancipatory aim, there is a need for a large-scale quantitative study and a health-economics analysis to provide the necessary evidence base for mentoring to be recommended as a cost-effective intervention with clear benefits for individual wellbeing.