Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:41:44.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Designers' Perspective on Additive Manufactured Smart Wearables for Paediatric Habilitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

M. Bonello  and
P. Farrugia
M. Bonello*
Affiliation:
University of Malta, Malta
P. Farrugia
Affiliation:
University of Malta, Malta
*
[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The aim of the paper is to identify from the perspective of designers, what is required to optimally design smart habilitation devices for additive manufacturing, whilst ensuring a high quality multi-user experience. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with designers to identify the key requirements to develop such devices. The outcome of this study will provide a preliminary framework for designers to take advantage of the state-of-the-art of design for additive manufacturing in order to meet the expectations of multiple users of smart devices for pediatric occupational therapy.

Keywords

additive manufacturingco-designuser experiencesmart wearables for peadiatric habilitation
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 1243 - 1252
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Balzan, E., Vella, P., Farrugia, P. Abela, E, & Cassar, G., and Gauci, M., (2021), “Towards a Verification and Validating Testing Framework to Develop Bespoke Medical Products in Research-Funded Projects”, International Conference on Engineering Design, 3199–3208. 10.1017/pds.2021.581.Google Scholar
Bitkina, O. V., Kim, H. K. and Park, J., (2020), “Usability and user experience of medical devices: An overview of the current state, analysis methodologies, and future challenges”. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 76. 10.1016/j.ergon.2020.102932Google Scholar
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oaGoogle Scholar
Filho I.F.P., De Carvalho, Medola, F.O., Sandnes, F.E. and Paschoarelli, L.C. (2020), “Manufacturing Technology in Rehabilitation Practice: Implications for Its Implementation in Assistive Technology Production”, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 975. 10.1007/978-3-030-20216-3_31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Effendi, I., Susmartini, S., and Herdiman, L., (2020), “Design and additive manufacturing of wrist therapy devices for people with muscle disorders”, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1450(1). 10.1088/1742-6596/1450/1/012116Google Scholar
Hanna, L., Risden, K., Czerwinski, M., and Alexander, K. J., (1998), “The role of usability research in designing children's computer products”, The design of children's technology, 3–26.Google Scholar
International classification of functioning, disability, and health: ICF. (2001). World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
ISO (2016), ISO 13485:2016: Medical devices - Quality management systems - Requirements for regulatory purposes, International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.Google Scholar
Ko, H., Moon, S.K. and Otto, K.N., (2015), “Design knowledge representation to support personalised additive manufacturing”. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 10 (4), pp. 217–226. 10.1080/17452759.2015.1107942Google Scholar
Kumke, M., Watschke, H., and Vietor, T., (2016), “A new methodological framework for design for additive manufacturing”, Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 11, 3–19. 10.1080/17452759.2016.113937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumke, M., Watschke, H., Hartogh, P., Bavendiek, A. K. and Vietor, T., (2018) “Methods and tools for identifying and leveraging additive manufacturing design potentials”, International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 12, 481–493. 10.1007/s12008-017-0399-7Google Scholar
Lee, K. H., Kim, D. K., Cha, Y. H., Kwon, J., Kim, D. and Kim, S. J., (2019), “Personalized assistive device manufactured by 3D modelling and printing techniques”, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 14:5, 526–531. 10.1080/17483107.2018.1494217Google ScholarPubMed
Markopoulos, P. and Bekker, M., (2003). On the assessment of usability testing methods for children. Interacting with Computers, 15(2): 227–243. 10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00009-2Google Scholar
Martínez, G. M. C. and Z.-Avilés, L. A. (2020), “Design Methodology for Rehabilitation Robots: Application in an Exoskeleton for Upper Limb Rehabilitation”, Applied Sciences, 10(16):5459. 10.3390/app10165459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perera, S. and Ranasinghe, D. (2018), “Design Approach to Rehabilitation: Developing therapy assistive products for children with Hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy”, International Journal of Architectural Research Archnet, 12(2):307. 10.26687/archnet-ijar.v12i2.1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polkinghorne, D.E. (1989) Phenomenological Research Methods. In: Valle, R.S., Halling, S. (eds) Existential-Phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology. 10.1007/978-1-4615-6989-3_3Google Scholar
QSR International Pty Ltd., (2020), NVivo 12, Available at: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/homeGoogle Scholar
Ricotta, V., Campbell, R.I., Ingrassia, T. and Nigrelli, V. (2020), “A new design approach for customised medical devices realized by additive manufacturing”, International Journal on Interactive Design Manufacturing, 14, 1171–1178. 10.1007/s12008-020-00705-5Google Scholar
Sabarish, S., Udhayakumar, P., and Pandiyarajan, R. (2021), “Additive manufacturing for customized hearing aid parts production: an empirical study”, Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 44(7), 704–717. 10.1080/02533839.2021.1940297Google Scholar
Shirzad, N. L., Valdés, B. A., Hung, C., Law, M., Hay, J. and Loos, H.F., (2015), “FEATHERS, a bimanual upper limb rehabilitation platform: a case study of user-centred approach in rehabilitation device design”, International Conference on Engineering Design, 361–370 10.14288/1.0228382Google Scholar
Thorsen, R., Bortot, F. and Caracciolo, A. (2019), “From patient to maker - A case study of co-designing an assistive device using 3D printing”, Assistive technology, 10.1080/10400435.2019.1634660Google Scholar
Vaezi, M., Chianrabutra, S., Mellor, B., and Yang, S., (2013), “Multiple Material Additive Manufacturing – Part 1: A Review”, Virtual and Physical Prototyping. 8. 10.1080/17452759.2013.778175.Google Scholar
Vaneker, T. H., Bernard, A., Moroni, G., Gibson, I. and Zhang, Y. (2020), “Design for additive manufacturing: Framework and methodology”, CIRP Annals. 10.1016/j.cirp.2020.05.006Google Scholar
Yeong, W. Y. and Chua, C. K. (2013), “A quality management framework for implementing additive manufacturing of medical devices”, Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 8:3, 193–199. 10.1080/17452759.2013.838053Google Scholar
Ziviani, J., Poulsen, A., and Cuskelly, M., (2013), The art and science of motivation: a therapist's guide to working with children, London, Philadelphia.Google Scholar