SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A Framework for the Human-Centered Design of Service Processes Enabled by Medical Devices: A Case Study of Wearable Devices for Parkinson's Disease.

Int J Environ Res Public Health · 2024-10-16

DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21101367PMID: 39457340

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

The successful introduction of medical devices (MDs) in real-world settings hinges on designing service processes that cater to stakeholders' needs. While human-centered design (HCD) approaches have been widely applied to service process innovation, the literature lacks a methodology that leverages MDs' key features to design service processes that meet stakeholders' needs. This study aims to fill this gap by developing a framework for the HCD of service processes enabled by MDs. The proposed framework mixes and adapts methodological elements from HCD and technology-enabled design approaches and proposes four new tools. The five-phase framework was applied to the design of a new Parkinson's disease diagnosis and treatment process (PD-DTP) enabled by two wearable MDs for the detection of motor symptoms. The case study lasted five months and involved 42 stakeholders in 21 meetings (interviews, focus groups, etc.). Thanks to the case study, the framework was tested, and a new PD-DTP that could benefit all stakeholders involved was identified. This study provides a framework that, in addition to contributing to theory, could assist MDs developers and healthcare managers in designing service processes that cater to stakeholders' needs by leveraging MDs' key features.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.