Design and health: an interdisciplinary baseline experience of product design for health needs of the Chilean elderly

Abstract

Abstract
 Objective: Describing the results of a User-Centered Design workshop using Challenge Based Learning or CBL, where students from Chilean industrial design and health degrees, developed solutions to resolve health problems among the elderly.
 Method: It was a pre-experimental study; 45 university students took part in a workshop: 39 from Industrial Design, 3 from Speech Therapy, 2 from Medical Technology and 1 from Medicine. In this workshop, the students, using CBL in disciplinary heterogeneous groups, faced a 3-week challenge to develop products to overcome a health problem for an elderly person. Once the product was presented, the professors and students assessed the conceptual proposals, using a semantic differential. The students also evaluated the workshop with a perception survey.
 Results: Both the students and professors positively evaluated the usefulness and functionality of the conceptual proposals; although, the industrial design students were more critical about these aspects. The originality of proposals evaluated was the worst. Regarding the workshop, all students (100%) felt that instructions were clear as were the three moments of design, with problem definition stage best evaluated.
 Conclusions: The CBL is shown to be an educational tool that allows training professionals in product design and in developing health technology that is suitable for the users' needs. Regarding the process, heterogeneous make-up of the groups and clear external guide appear as essential for CBL to work well.
 Keywords: challenge-based learning, elderly, interdisciplinary, higher education.
 Continuous...

Designathons in health research: a global systematic review

“…Eight studies (19%) reported using other methods, such as feedback from the judging panel and audience and votes, to evaluate the output generated during the designathon (figure 1 and online supplemental table 4). 21 25 26 31 44 46 54 58 In total, 34 studies (81%) reported having judging panels as follows: designathon participants (n=2, 5%),25 26 external expert (n=19, 45%),7 24 28–30 33–35 37 40 41 44–46 48–51 56 more than one profession (n=10, 24%)8 18 20 22 23 27 36 38 43 47 58 and others (n=6, 14%) (eg, steering committees and faculty mentors) (figure 1 and online supplemental table 4). 19 21 34 52 54 57…”

Designathons in Health Research: A Global Systematic Review

“…3,5,6,18,19,21,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]33,34,[38][39][40][41][42]45,47 The median number of the final product was 8.5 (IQR 5, 13, range 2-40). The final products reported from thirty-two studies (84%) emerged as four themes: 1) educational programs (n=8, 21%), such as wellness and healthy choice programs; 16,17,23,26,27,29,44,46 2) mobile phone applications (n=7, 18%), such as management of opioids and support mental health; 20,21,28,30,31,40,41 3) medical devices (n=4, 11%), such as breast pumps and humanitarian surgical care; 3,18,25,35 and 4) mixed interventions (n=11, 29%) (Table 3). 5,6,19,24,…”

“…3,5,6,19,21,[24][25][26]28,30,31,33,36,37,39,40,42,44,49,51 Eight studies (21%) reported using other methods, such as feedback from the judge panel and audience and votes, to evaluate the product generated during the designathon (Table 3). [16][17][18]20,29,30,45,46 The judge panels included designathon participants (N=2, 5%), 29,30 external expert (N=18, 47%) 5,18,19,21,22,28,[32][33][34][36][37][38]42,43,45,[48][49][50] and more than one professions (N=11, 29%) (Table 3…”

“…[16][17][18]20,29,30,45,46 The judge panels included designathon participants (N=2, 5%), 29,30 external expert (N=18, 47%) 5,18,19,21,22,28,[32][33][34][36][37][38]42,43,45,[48][49][50] and more than one professions (N=11, 29%) (Table 3). 6,23,[25][26][27]31,39,40,44,46,47…”