Hopkins Hour: Co-Designing technology solutions for translation into real world application

afternoon everybody and welcome to today's online Hopkins hour in this seminar today I'm being designed being joined part of me my name is Louise Gustafson I'm program lead for program two of enabling Technologies and environments at the Hopkins Center and I'm being joined today by my colleagues Camilla shirota Kelly Clancy to Neil Hodson and Max McShane and we're going to be talking with you today about co-designing Technology Solutions for translation into real world application before we begin today I would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands upon which we are meeting from for me I'm in the beautiful Tui Forest here on Nathan campus which is the country of the terrible and yadura people I'd like to pay my respects to the elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Griffith university community and those joining us here today to encourage all the 10 attends the referendum and before you cast your vote on that day just a few housekeeping notes before we get started we know that internet can be a little bit shaky sometimes we've got people working in the background with us so if you have any technical difficulties please pop a question in the chat there's a toolbar across the top of your screen there and you can see like a little conversational icon so pop or something in there and we'll do our best to assist you if needed sometimes we find it it's often best to just leave and re-enter and that will not be a problem you'll be entering back into the seminar as soon as you come back into the team site we will have a dedicated question of answers after everyone has spoken today so please feel free to pop your questions in the chat as people are talking we'll be monitoring those and um talking about those at the end of the session so again we're going to use that chat function up the top and we've just Hannah has just popped some information there for you about how to do that we will do our very best to address all of the questions within the time frames that we have today but if we run out of time we will certainly follow up with people afterwards so it is my great pleasure to introduce our first speaker for today that's Dr Camilla shirota who's going to be presenting to us about the create framework for co-designing rehabilitation technology thanks Camilla thanks Louise for the introduction and good afternoon to everyone thanks for joining us today um before I get started on the framework itself I'd like to acknowledge the team so as you can see we're not a small team but that was kind of a deliberate decision because we're talking about co-design and so we also wanted to make sure that we had diverse representation within our group so we have people with lived experience of disability as well as people with a clinical background or health technical experts as well as people with experience in business and also facilitation um just to give a little bit of background of why we decided to um Design This framework um it's based on a little bit of personal experiences um of the team and it's that experience where a technical person comes to a clinician and says well tell me what you'd like and the clinician says well tell me what you can do and then we get stuck in this cycle and it's really hard to break and this isn't I mean even considering other people that should be engaged in these conversations for example people with disabilities themselves the manufacturers industry so people who make these products and put them out there on the market policy makers funders and so on so the approach we took to develop this framework was kind of in three big steps first we started with looking into the research literature to see how people had approached co-design like processes for developing Rehabilitation technology specifically based on that we developed a preliminary framework which we then took to experts so people outside of our research team who were experts in co-design implementation and knowledge translation at a high level not necessarily in disability and also not necessarily related to rehab Technologies and then also we took it to people with lived experience of disability who had also participated in some sort of creation around Technology Solutions so we took all of their feedback implemented it into our framework came up with a new revised version and then we took it to existing projects in that were developing Rehabilitation Technologies and we got two people from each project to kind of give it a go and give us some more feedback and that's resulted into the framework which I'm going to present to you today so we're not going to go through this process and the step by step but really what was the final outcome so our framework is called the co-designing rehabilitation technology framework um and well I'm going to walk you through its components and we just submitted it to a journal so the first component that is important is who is engaged um and so we came up with a few groups this is not intended to be an exhaustive list but is an indication of the groups that tend to be engaged but also groups that we think are important to be engaged because either they influence or are influenced by the use of Rehabilitation Technologies so we have lived experience of disability so the individuals themselves as well as their families and consumer bodies clinical or health professionals people with a technical background funders and there's a typo there it's not brand providers um it's Grant providers um apologies for that one but also medical decision makers so who decides what equipment gets purchased to be used in a hospital for example people that are engaged in policy making and regulations around medical devices businesses so again people that are manufacturing these devices and putting them out commercially on the market so they can be bought and used and then finally a group that tends to be a little bit forgotten are the facilitators so people that are making sure that everybody can have a seat at the table and that these interactions are productive and helping move the project forward um another important component are the phases of development and are so kind of when people are engaged in the process and we took inspiration from um the life cycle of a technology so that Maps roughly um like this so you have an idea the first stage is about um identifying uh needs where a solution um is being is necessary and then also narrowing down on which ones will be focused on for the solution then you start working on what the solution may look like so brainstorming coming up with ideas and testing them when you find a solution that is um acceptable then you start moving into how do we commercialize or produce this and put it out there on the market so we're talking about development of strategies marketing production launching and making sure that it gets out and once it's out it's checking in and making sure that it's getting used and also reviewing it as it goes to make sure that it's still responding to that initial problem that was identified um as you can tell by the arrows this isn't necessarily a linear process this is also not an exhaustive list here but it's kind of indicative so that you kind of know what to expect across a Technology's life cycle and then finally now that we know who and when it's also about how or what people are doing so we came up with a legend which is related to the levels of Engagement so starting there on the right you'll see um the first stage which everyone should be at is at the very least to listen so be informed about what is happening um at the next level of responsibility is response so not only being informed about what's happening but providing information or for example in a consultative role about helping make decisions about what's going to happen and then finally act which is maximum responsibility so people that are making sure that things get done so that the project can progress in addition to these roles and responsibilities we also have some indication around decision making so um as much as we like um to think that everybody is involved in all of the decisions there are also layers of complexity there so there are people that will be doing making decisions on a day-to-day basis on more the smaller things but at a high level um we'd like to think that everybody should be involved in decision making throughout the project so how does this all come together um we've mapped this out in a matrix or a map of some sort where we have stakeholders on the vertical axis and phases of development down at the bottom and what we do is kind of fill in the boxes according to people's level of Engagement so for example here you have in the identify stage so when you're looking for needs and also narrowing down on which ones will be focused on it should be led by people with lived experience in clinicians and the facilitators making sure that the conversation is going but the other stakeholders kind of take a back seat in the need search phase and then start being giving more input in the need screening where there's a refinement of which ones will be focused on and then you continue doing so on and so forth throughout the life of the project um one more element in our framework is about how this facilitation is done so sometimes it can be not scary yet but intimidating or a lot of people don't know how to engage for example with people with disability um so it's about uh highlighting that it's a long-term thing it's about building relationships that are positive that are productive and so focusing on making sure that Community there's clear communication that people are open to the opinions of others and also and being challenging at having their assumptions challenged and valuing the input of all of the participants future work for us is to apply this across all of our projects make sure we consult with stakeholder groups that haven't been included so far um we'll continue updating the framework and hopefully we'll see other people using it as well thank you for your attention our contact information is there if you'd like any further information and now I'm going to pass it on to Dr taniel Hudson who is a lecturer in occupational therapy here at the school of health sciences and social work at Griffith and she also engages in research at the Hopkins Center foreign just get my slides on okay so um I will be extending on what Camilla just discussed um and presenting on a co-design uh project that we completed in the first half of this year um there were a number of people involved in this project and they are all listed on the um slide at the moment uh I think it's a bit important that I give you a bit of a background information to the project before talking about the process and the outcomes of it um so it is knowing that people with acquired brain injury do experience some difficulty when they return to home following Hospital discharge and that these difficulties aren't always anticipated uh this is because we do know that the hospital environment is built to be safe it's built to reduce risk and is often very structured and there are reasons for that um the realities of Life at home however are not always reflective of this um the home is more complex life is more complex so the environment is very different and so when people return home without adequately being prepared for those added complexities of everyday life they can experience difficulty engaging in their daily life and this can impact quality of life and overall well-being so because of this the current research project aimed to better prepare people for their return home from inpatient Rehabilitation we aim to do this by co-designing a technology solution which would meet the needs of all stakeholders inclusive of clinicians and people with ABI their support people um to assist with the transition home upon the completion it was proposed of the project it was proposed that we would have some sort of Technology solution to Pilot tests so we kept the terminology of technological solution uh quite Broad so led by our Rehabilitation engineer Camilla shiroda and also a tech designer called Alex Thompson we use design thinking to structure our co-design workshops in the first two workshops we focus on framing a question and Gathering inspiration this took the form of asking people with ABI and health professionals what the barriers and enablers were in the transition to home and prioritizing needs in the third Workshop we started to look at generating ideas and making ideas tangible so we had people with ABI health professionals and Technology designers working together to discuss what the tech what they would like the technology to look like but also what was achievable and then in the fourth Workshop some prototypes of Technology Solutions were presented to the co-designers and I'll get to show you those today as well so this is on this slide you can see what was involved in the breakdown of our actual workshops so who was involved as well uh whilst we did aim to have support people engage in the workshops too we weren't able to recruit um any support people but you'll see that we had a number of people with ABI and clinicians in researchers all within these uh workshops and they ended up being four workshops okay so some of the findings from this first Workshop participants identified a number of different issues that they experienced after returning home from inpatient Rehabilitation and they felt needed addressing this included a loss of structure in their days and they discussed not being prepared as to how they would occupy their days as during Hospital rehab they spend a lot of time in different appointments and there was also issues with a number of different areas of daily life uh they also discussed how they felt ready for their return home and felt that they had plateaued in hospital um but there are issues only became a reality after that they after they returned home and they said that this couldn't always be anticipated um some particular needs that participants also highlighted was uh there were some communication barriers identified um and they also discussed a desire for their family and friends to understand the realities of their acquired brain injury and also that Rehabilitation needed to be a little bit more personalized so that took us to our second Workshop where we presented the findings from the workshop back from the first Workshop back to participants I mean the co-designers prioritized the needs to identify what the technology which solution should focus on so on this slide you can see that the critical factors to be incorporated into the technology solution was that it enabled the treating team to understand the reality of their life but it enabled family to understand the person with Abi's new reality and that it enabled the person with ABI to compare their current understanding of progress with the potential reality of what home would be like they also the co-design is also highlighted what would be nice to include in the technology solution if possible so that it would be an all-in-one solution that would contain their Rehabilitation goals it'd be personalized to them and it would create a shared understanding of reality so this is just a picture of the prioritization process um and then in the third Workshop the technology designers worked with the other co-designers to identify what would potentially be included in a technology solution so we split the co-designers into two groups each had a technology designer plus people with acquired brain injury and health professionals in each group and some of the researchers um so group one identified that the solution would be used to access education resources would enhance understanding from the support team and would enable the sharing of the information about life before the ADI with the healthcare team and then group two identified that the solution would help with setting goals help to understand who was in the support team helped to develop plans and access education resources um what you can see here is that even though the two groups did work separately they both actually prioritize similar things to be included in the Technology Solutions so in this uh slide you can see one of the prototypes that was developed so here you can see the therapist facing version of one of the tech Solutions um this is where the therapist could see questions that a person with ABI had asked and also how often they'd access the app Etc um and then this is the uh the person with Abi's version of the tech solution so this is what they would see um so you can see here that it was kind of developed to be interactive so they ask questions and have pre filled out answers come back to them um then the second solution here uh was developed to provide the person with key information about their goals the support team where they could access information Etc um doing that um and then that was kind of seen as a critical for the technology solution and then we had some additional options as well that the technology developers is not uh presented us with so um for instance the person with ABI could write down some of the experience the symptoms that they had experienced so that they could discuss up with their health professional that they can communicate or write down different questions that they might have and there were also some different options for accessibility and layout that you can see there um so I'm now gonna hand over to Dr Kelly Clancy who is the program director for The Bachelor of clinical exercise physiology at the school of health sciences and social work at Griffith and is also a researcher aligned with Hopkins and griffith inclusive Futures Beacon thank you Danielle before I get started I'd like to acknowledge my project team Jesse Mitchell Carmel Holland evangeld Claudio pizzoloto Elizabeth Kendall and Camilla sharota conducting usability testing during the during the early stages of Technology development can result in fewer implementation challenges and in turn improved Rehabilitation outcomes there are a number of published methods for how to take the qualitative and the quantitative data and extract usability issues from them however what's not readily known it or understood is how these usability issues are prioritized and subsequently integrated into a product roadmap in an Ideal World these prioritization methods should be reliable valid seek to minimize bias and also ideally integrate stakeholders my presentation details an approach we took to undertake a usability evaluation of the biospines system biospine is a novel neural restorative technology for individuals with a spinal cord injury the biospine technology aims to optimize engagement with and outcomes of Fes cycling using BCI brain computer interface and virtual reality Technologies in this study we recruited five individuals with the spinal cord injury four of which had a cervical spine its spine level injury all of which were at least one year post injury all of our participants were Community dwelling and had previous experience with the FES technology participants engage with the biospine system as per the usual requirements of the training session the session was divided into five parts which is indicated by the five boxes in the top panel with a semi-structured interview evaluating the usability and the acceptability of the system following the testing session during steps one to five participants engaged in a think aloud protocol where they were encouraged to verbalize their thoughts while engaging with the system feedback was provided in three forms indicated by the brown boxes free queued and structured in free feedback participants were encouraged to verbalize their thoughts as they occurred to them with the cued feedback it occurred at particular points within the protocol so for example if a participant was focusing on motor imagery they weren't able to verbalize their thoughts so we asked them directly after that period and then finally structured structured feedback usually followed a component of the system so for example we would put the equipment on the participant then ask them for their thoughts on that process post-usability evaluation we undertook a four-stage protocol to log classify and categorize the data which is indicated by the darker brown boxes in this process we logged 538 38 data points which we classified as 227 issues across five participants which we then categorized as six uniquely identified issues across nine themes these nine themes are highlighted in the table to the right these themes included difficulties with motor imagery comfort and positioning safety and risk the next challenge was is how do we reduce the unconscious bias that goes into ranking and prioritizing usability data we implemented a two-phase process with issue ranking being indicated by the blue boxes and solution generation being indicated by the purple boxes in the issue ranking process we applied a significance rating a technical technical feasibility ranking and priority ranking a significance rating related to the severity of the issues specifically participant comfort and the ultimate usability of the system and this was conducted by members of the Project's translation team our technical feasibility rating was divided into two technical complexity and resource availability with a degree of technical difficulty to address the issue and whether the issue could be resolved within the existing resources of the project were evaluated by our project's design team at this stage our design team started the process of coding and grouping the issues as per design and implementation components and ideating solutions an implementational priority rating was provided by the Project's external steering committee members were provided with the significance and Technical feasibility ratings and were asked to evaluate the importance of resolving the issue using a time-based system so for example the issue needed to be resolved immediately or in the short term So within the next six months of the project or that the issue needed to be resolved in the next iteration of the project within six to nine months solution mapping and tracking was done in consideration of the project milestones and resources and as per the priority ratings provided these ratings were conducted by a diverse set of stakeholders in Rehabilitation technology including individuals with lived experience of disability and individuals with expertise in the fields of Health including medical and Allied Health Neuroscience engineering and design and policy including legal policy and insurance the result facing the graphic presented on this lab is the result of the usability evaluation with each panel representing the significance technical complexity resource availability and implementation ratings respectively the y-axis presents the percentage of issues that were rated at each level as you move from left to right the criticality increases so we see an increase in participant discomfort and increasing complex technical complexity and increasing the unavailability of resources and a higher implementation priority overall eighty percent of our identified issues were rated as having a significance rating of moderate or higher technical complexity ratings were relatively evenly distributed across the ratings of minimal moderate and difficult 75 percent of our identified issues were rated as being able to be addressed within the existing Project's resources fifty percent of the identified issues were rating were rated as being of a high priority requiring immediate resolution within the next six months of the project it's important to note that none of the issues identified were rated as not a priority for implementation this is a pictorial representation of the criticality of the issues with the significant rating on the y-axis ranging from minor to critical As you move from top bottom to top and the technical complexity on the x-axis increasing in difficulty As you move from left to right Resources with a high implementation priority are brown and mid implementation priority blue and a low implementation priority green solid fill boxes indicate that the issue can be resolved within the existing resources of the project and a gradient fill indicates that they can't to read this graphic you start at the top left this indicates the issues with the highest significance that are the easiest to resolve Brown issues are resolved first then blue then green As you move down and across the graphic the significance of the issue reduces and the technical complexity increases this diagram provides a pictorial representation of how the design team categorized the 60 identified issues they group these 60 issues into 15 design or implementation components which resulted in 21 identified modifications to the project the product roadmap the boxes to the right indicate or demonstrate how the 60 identified issues were mapped to the identified components five of the 21 product roadmap tasks will prioritize for the next deployment version of release of the biospine technology with a further nine tasks under development for subsequent design iterations the remaining seven will be integrated into the next phase of the project no one method is perfect in its execution we learned lots of lessons that will apply in the future challenges in implementing this method include measuring impact so how do you know that you actually made a positive contribution to the design and development of the technology the continuing cycles of development and being able to undertake a body of work or you get 538 data points down to a usable product in time for the design team to action and also opportunistic development so potentially you may have an honors student coming on board that can work on an issue that has a really low prior implementation priority but they're opportunistically here so we take advantage of that resource or the reverse of that is the identification of a number of issues that relate to one particular staff member's expertise and the allocation of them as a resource towards those issues future research directions for this work include a solution generation Workshop where we'd like to present prototypes or storyboards of the solutions that we've generated back to our original participants in order to get an understanding of whether they think that addresses the issue and what their implementation priority would be for the solutions presenting participant feedback to to our participants in a way that's meaningful and shows their contribution to the design and development of the technology and finally the implementation of this protocol in Acute rehabilitation settings with practitioner participants so that we can really understand those nuanced implementation considerations that come from the clinical settings I would like to acknowledge the motor accident insurance commission for their very generous funding of the biospine project and this work thank you very much for listening to my rapid fire presentation in regards to a practical means of prioritizing prioritizing for implementation usability data I'm going to pass back to Louise now who will be talking to Matthew McShane who's a project coordinator and Industrial designer for the Griffith inclusive Futures Beacon thank you very much Kelly I would like to just very quickly before I start talking to Matt think um Camilla Tennille and Kelly very much they were given a very tight time frame to present their work today so that we had um plenty of time available for us to hear about the design Cafe from Matt but also for us to have a discussion with you and answer your questions so please remember to pop your questions into the chat if you're not able to do that when we get to that point in time you can pop your hand your virtual hand up you can raise that and when we certainly are happy to have a discussion with you we'll have all presenters back on screen for a panel at that time so welcome Matt it is great to have you um joining us today we're very very excited that you could join us to talk to us about the design Cafe I was wondering if you would like to take a moment to just introduce yourself to the um audience and tell them a little bit about yourself and how you're here why you're here yeah my name is Matt McShane I'm an industrial designer and uh working in the Griffith inclusive Futures Beacon doing some pretty cool projects here uh-huh great and one of those cool projects is the design Cafe um I know this is kind of an idea that you brought with you into inclusive Futures can you tell me a little bit about what kind of prompted this idea what was the need that you saw yeah um so the design cafes is stemmed from a personal uh experiences of of living in a world that um for the last 14 years seemed to be being told what I need from people that don't have the same needs as myself and it was a problem that I would often see in my community of people similar to me so um we thought this was a really cool opportunity to focus on having people with disabilities throughout the design process from start to finish great so how does that translate into the design Cafe then yeah so the design Cafe is a virtual and in-person place where we can run these events where people with disabilities can explain the barriers that they face a little bit about themselves how their disability affects them on a personal level and and what sort of solutions I'd like to sort of see and we sort of focus on uh everyday kind of things that really actually matter that often get forgot you know um there's always an emphasis on big assistive technology and groundbreaking exciting things which are great but often the small things like um doing up zippers and and plugging in your iPhone and and little things like that often sort of get missed definitely and there has been first one has run down on the Gold Coast Campus there yeah so we run a test event which was really cool we had um two guests coming in and they gave their story about themselves and and we had uh six industrial design students and so we got to learn a bit about them uh how their disability affects them daily uh and what sort of solutions and barriers that they faced daily that they would like to sort of overcome and um then we broke into some core workshops where the students and the individuals with the with the ideas sort of get together and we sort of problem solved and came up with some cool ideas and learned more through that creative process and why do you think it's important that students are involved yeah I think this is crucial it's it's one of those things that um the students don't really get to be um involved in disability and uh it's a cool opportunity for them to learn what disability is and and the wide array of of different different types of disabilities and how that actually affects people at a human level as opposed to reading a textbook so we're hearing directly from the individual about how they um how they navigate their life and it's often positive just as well as sort of what they can't do so we we put a spin where we try and enable them to do more so um that's really important because the students get to sort of experience that and then they get to design for someone else which is really cool and designed from an empathy and understanding point of view and then it's also a great practice of Designing with someone for someone and someone else's idea you know I'm in it but I tried and I think there's lots of opportunities for a range of different types of students to be involved in something like this Beyond design students yeah I think everyone can benefit from it um yeah it's really helpful I think and so what's next is there another one planned yeah so we've we've got the industrial design uh course starting next year so that starts trimester one next year so we'll have uh students at our disposal so we can um run another one starting next year and and hopefully run another one before the end of the year um just to sort of weed out any issues that we might find but yeah the plans for next year um it will have a course sort of built into the students curriculum so we'll have them at our disposal to really get involved and immersed in this how that progresses and what that looks like next year and I guess being involved because it really aligns there's lots of lovely alignment with what's happening with the work you're doing in inclusive Futures which isn't many of us are also members of that but this real focus on bringing people with the need and who are expert in that experience together with people who have other skills of knowledge to help Define the solution and to um find that optimal solution for everyone moving forward because I remember when we were talking often when we've had a conversation you've talked about how even if something's designed and it's almost right there's just a little bit that's not quite right sometimes that little thing can become a big hassle in the future yeah and often with um designed for disability it's the the person with a disability is the last sort of the dark in Mind through the design process um and they might miss a couple steps or a couple key things so um often we get left with a product or a service that's close uh and and with the right intent but execution maybe you've Fallen at the last hurdle or if it's a little bit of a hustle it's a lot of a hassle so people don't use it which is why I think this process is really cool we keep them involved from the start to the finish so that we hopefully can sort of avoid any of those um you know unfortunate products that don't quite hit the mark absolutely there's a there's a great sustainability element in that as well in terms of things going out into homes and then not being used and just sitting in cupboards or in landfill now is there anything else you wanted to stress before we bring all the other panel back for a bigger discussion with the audience no that's stay tuned stay tuned it's great it's a great initiative we look forward to watching it um if I could get Camilla and um Kelly to turn their camera back on thank you I know there's a couple of us all in the same room so we're going to try to make sure we hop into the middle when we're answering um please pop your questions up we've got the first question there is for you to Neil um what progress has been made in terms of development of the technology solution so where are we up to with that okay so the um the second technology solution that was presented today has been um presented or being worked on by some work integrated learning I.T students who are further developing that specific technology solution with potential of the parts or elements of the First Technology solution that was presented being integrated in future and development and the intention is after we further develop it is to Pilot it further yeah put it up for more testing and and see um get that feedback that um you know very similar to what Kelly was talking about about really trying to find getting that think aloud getting feedback from everyone who might be using it to define it brilliant thank you um a question for Kelly so the prioritization process that you presented is amazing thank you so much in future stages of development of the project is that the intention to undertake further user testing with a larger cohort and if so will a similar approach be taken to analyzing that data absolutely um the very next stage of the process is to bring the users in a little bit earlier into the Prototype ideation storyboarding phase um and get their feedback on the usability of the issues in that context in order to make sure we're prioritizing the resources and the timelines of the project effectively um from that point forward we're starting to look at more diverse um more diverse stakeholders and more um more acute injuries looking at inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities as well um in regards to the similar approach I absolutely believe in the prioritization and the implementation process that we undertook I really like the idea of bringing the design and engineering team earlier into that process though I think we can introduce some really exciting efficiencies in regards to the categorization of the presentation of the data that it's going to appeal to the the broader engineering and design field as a whole So in theory yes in practicality slight modifications always looking to do better right thank you um I'm gonna pop to to Neil and there's a question again for you Kelly that I'll come back to um for to Neil are there plans to explore that second prototype the other prototype yeah so I guess what we did see because they were addressing like a similar kind of Concepts there is uh I suppose uh opportunity to integrate aspects of the other prototype into um development of the one we're focusing on that at the moment um I guess the other thing that I didn't really touch on as much during my presentation was during those co-design workshops we were gathering a lot of qualitative data as well with everyone's permission um and so there was a lot of avenues for further uh research I guess presented as well during those um workshops so we've collected all that there's a lot of data to get through or a lot of qualitative data to get through so there's a lot to do in the space and a lot of opportunities and I guess I would just add to that in the small group that we worked with probably that other prototype was the one that generated the most discussion of don't like it do like it could we do it can we do it just because of the complexities of um we know the challenges for people with acquired brain injury when they go home around memory and other issues and there yeah there was a lot of interesting discussion from people with lived experienced support workers and clinicians around how that might work and what might be the best way to have someone talking essentially to a chatbot yeah to get answers so that's certainly something that we'd love to explore further we know that there's been work done with that for people with dementia so we know it's not a complete unknown thing yeah um Kelly back to you during the ranking process who did you account for in terms of differences of opinions between participants so if some participants write a particular issue higher than the other yeah I'm sorry it's a it's a good question because we did have quite a diverse range of stakeholders and um some of them would be able to speak more to one particular issue versus another issue particularly when it came to things like the significance and the technical complexity readings for this significance and the technical complexity ratings we did a consensus approach so we brought all the stakeholders into the room at the same time and they were able to speak to their experience and also their expertise around ishusu and then the issue was rated subsequently unfortunately due to the availability of our external stakeholder committee we weren't able to do a consensus moderation approach for them we had to take the median value that was provided for each implementation ranking to try overcome that we did a red cap survey where we kind of included both the technical complexity and the significance reading we provided those to the steering committee so that they kind of understood the perspectives of the other other groups of stakeholders and we also included a lot of information that allowed them to understand the context of the issue so for example if we refer to a bio wrap or a brain computer interface we would put information into the survey that they could access great thank you Kelly Camilla great job on developing the create framework is a comment first and then we've got a question for you with regard to the identification process I'm just wondering if it is not necessarily to involve facilitators and developers in this stage um thanks for that question and the answer the short answer is yes um we actually believe in in our framework that um as many stakeholders as possible should be engaged from the very beginning um I think it's uh what I presented was also a fictitious example we just came up with something um but it's about also in the identification stage when you're doing the very initial looking for problems um usually um the technical input you're not expecting that much yet and then when you start refining and trying to bring that into you know what can we actually solve then you'd expect these other um stakeholders to to participate more um but again um you know if even to try to address what Matt alluded to earlier you don't want people to uh we've heard a lot of people that have said you know I'm doing my stuff every day and all of a sudden somebody comes up to me and says look I invented this thing do you want to try it um we want to try to avoid situations like that so that people are involved from the very beginning even if their engagement is um even though they're not that involved but at least being able to know what's happening and give input if they find it necessary or when it's relevant excellent these are great questions everyone thanks for keep them coming for us we've got one for you now Matt what has been the most exciting or interesting thing you've worked on at the design cafe or what do you think from a personal perspective rather possibilities um I think there was there was two that have come out the first one that were really cool uh one was uh the Ryan the participant he was part of a poker night and he wanted something to help hold his cards and and something easier for him to grip so we just designed up a 3D printed card holder which he claims makes him no better at poker but um he'll work on that and the other one was a really cool one for me it was um this one really helped understand the the user Journey throughout the design process so Ryan um high level quadriplegic and his uh grip strength isn't great um so for him he wanted he has a protein shake every day and he could do every step of this process from filling it up with water closing the lid and drinking it but it couldn't shake it so it was this one little sticking point in his daily activity that he needed someone else's help with so we're currently working on a little device that sort of he can slip his thumbs through to give him better grip that can attach to his protein Shaker so that he can sort of do all of the steps throughout the day for this process so that was the one that was really cool and it was really exciting to sort of see the students learn that and here here why this is an important thing for him I think they're great examples that's brilliant um oh sorry I'm moving around to Neil and Kelly clearly there are a lot of different voices in the room how did you manage competing ideas and ensure that the findings was valid but also there's a great result for all end users I think for us there was a few different approaches taken to this uh I suppose we did spend a lot of time creating a really open atmosphere at the start of the co-design workshops and because of that there was a great respect showing between all of the participants throughout and we like the participants or the co-designers were just yeah all very respectful of one another which was lovely I think the other thing um we did was use prioritization processes where like we would have butchers but I showed some of the pictures but butcher's paper down with different like Post-it notes writing down everyone's different uh identified needs or what they wanted to prioritize and everyone did that kind of individually and that was all collected up and then we tried to prioritize it so that everyone's needs were Incorporated somehow um and then we presented that back to get agreement so there was a number of check-ins along the pro at the process to ensure that everyone felt heard and it what we identified or the technology solution that was developed somehow did at least Target something that most people had identified Kelly it's messy It's Tricky it's it's um and it's meant to be difficult because everything that's worthwhile is most of the time at least anyway um from our perspective I think that um the rating system that we implemented really helped with that um a lot of existing rating systems are dependent on for example the frequency of issue over the number of participants but really don't speak to the criticality so they're not giving the participant a voice in regards to their experiences with the technology so by having a separate significance rating where we really love to participate comfort in the overarching usability of the system gave them that voice and then also to be respectful to the resources and the expertise of the the project developers and the engineers and the designers we gave them a series of complex technical complexity ratings or resource ratings so we tried to cover as many of those components as possible but at the end of the day there are there are life factors that really limit how beautifully you can do this approach and I think I spoke to some of them when I was talking about that kind of developmental cycle and trying to fit in with projects and opportunistic development um working on the co-design framework I guess it's just that shared decision making and that communication and just making sure that you're communicating back to all of your stakeholders and being transfer transparent in that decision-making process and going yeah you know what we didn't follow exactly these readings but it was because of this this and this but we're still thinking about what you said and we're still working towards what we want to achieve we're just doing a little bit of a roundabout way because that's just the way that this project is running and I think also based on our experience on other projects that have taken similar approaches um Everybody um is very understanding of the fact that people bring different expertises will have different perspectives and sometimes some things can get done now and others cannot but I think what Kelly said about being that that transparency is really a critical element so it's not just so people don't feel like you're just taking idea and running away and they don't know what happened to it it's by responding saying we would love to do all these things but these are the ones that we can do now and these are the reasons why great and now this is the question that we love because we love to see our stuff being put into practice um from Joan thank you are there resources available for me to use an upcoming project please so for the framework yes we just submitted a paper we're also working with some ICT students and making a beautiful tool on a website that people can use so I'm Joan happy to be in touch with you about that from Think Lab protocol perspective we are submitting a paper in a very short period of time that's why I look so tired um if you get to Frontiers and Rehabilitation Sciences we're also presenting it at rehab week as well so that'll be a published conference proceeding so we're happy to make those resources available as well great thank you now I would also looking at this next comment like to welcome um Professor Rachel McDonald's to our presentation from swinburne University of Technology um this is for you Matt um Rach says it's great to hear about the design Cafe important Fusion of design and lived experience and that there's a unit at swinburne that connects people with lived experience in a very similar way um the question for you is what are some of the key things you've learned about the co-design process through running the design Cafe yeah I think it was um it was really exciting to sort of see our designers that are sort of either stuck in their way or have their way of doing it and then um you know forcefully throwing someone else's uh design input or user usability of a product directly on that plate and they have to adapt um it was really cool to witness firsthand and and sort of see the Mind shift think from the way that they would typically have designed something and now they have to think that they're designing for someone else and someone else's needs so that was a really cool cool thing to witness beautiful thank you and I apologize in advance because that question wasn't from Rachel I suspect that was that was from peraski so I apologize for that um the next question that we have and we will have to wrap up after this is the one that we always uh think about is um what are recommendations as designers and this is for you mad and I guess potentially for Camilla to also think about um how to get products identified through the cafe or other co-design ways to Market so that they can be um put out into the world in a sustainable way and and meeting the needs of our consumers I think um the the space that I've been trying to focus and these small meaningful sort of enhancements to everyday items um our end goal is to have it all free open source on the internet so we can share files we're trying to stay in the uh accessible manufacturing methods 3D printing and things like that that are as available as ever through other universities and state libraries and things like that so we're hopefully the end goal is to have a lot of it free um so that people around the world or rural communities and can all get access to it and and hopefully sort of enhance their lives great Camila would you have add anything yeah um because we we work across different um Solutions but we also because we're within research tend to work on the more complex you know edge of Technology things um the way we've been trying to work around that or you know take it head first is by really trying to engage the stakeholders that would be involved in that part of the process and make sure that they're part of the conversation so that you know if there are issues around do we need to know what the market size is before we dwell into a specific direction or um in biospine we've had conversations around TGA so medical device regulations standards ISO standards making sure that everything is compliant and that it can actually become a product which you know as researchers we probably most of the time don't really need to cons have concerns about we also have people that our Venture capitalists so really trying to bring those perspectives in even while we might be a little bit further away from that that's kind of how we've been trying to to work about it great thank you um thank you so much everybody again thank you to our panel and also thank you so very much to all of you who have joined us here today um we really appreciate you making the time and there's been some great conversations and things for us to think about into the future hopefully you found the session interesting and as you can see we um really do have a clear mandate around any of our work in the space of technology in particular is always done in a way that's partnering with the consumers or the communities who are involved with that so we really look forward to continuing that work and get in touch with us if you would like to be involved with that or you've got an idea that you would like to chat with us about you can either contact us through the Hopkins Center email which is Hopkins centered at griffith.edu.edu or contact any of us individually to get more information so I'd love to wish you all a wonderful Wednesday afternoon and thank you again for joining us goodbye

2023-10-10 06:30

Other news