1932

Abstract

A shift in the traditional technocentric view of medical device design to a human-centered one is needed to bridge existing translational gaps and improve health equity. To ensure the successful and equitable adoption of health technology innovations, engineers must think beyond the device and the direct end user and must seek a more holistic understanding of broader stakeholder needs and the intended context of use early in a design process. The objectives of this review article are () to provide rationale for the need to incorporate meaningful stakeholder analysis and contextual investigation in health technology development and biomedical engineering pedagogy, () to review existing frameworks and human- and equity-centered approaches to stakeholder engagement and contextual investigation for improved adoption of innovative technologies, and () to present case studyexamples of medical device design that apply these approaches to bridge the gaps between biomedical engineers and the contexts for which they are designing.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-081922-024834
2023-06-08
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/bioeng/25/1/annurev-bioeng-081922-024834.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-081922-024834&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Butler D. 2008. Translational research: crossing the valley of death. Nature 453:7197840–42
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Madon T, Hofman KJ, Kupfer L, Glass RI. 2007. Implementation science. Science 318:58571728–29
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Malkin RA. 2007. Design of health care technologies for the developing world. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 9:567–87
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Fisher MJ, Johansen E. 2020. Human-centered design for medical devices and diagnostics in global health. Glob. Health Innov. 3:1 https://doi.org/10.15641/ghi.v3i1.762
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Aranda-Jan CB, Jagtap S, Moultrie J. 2016. Towards a framework for holistic contextual design for low-resource settings. Int. J. Des. 10:343–63
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Garvin DA. 1987. Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business Review101–9
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Dieter GE, Schmidt LC. 2012. Engineering Design New York: McGraw Hill. , 5th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Penchansky R, Thomas JW. 1981. The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Med. Care 19:2127–40
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    World Health Organ. (WHO) 2016. Towards improving access to medical devices through local production. Phase II: report of a case study in four sub-Saharan countries Rep. WHO Geneva:
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Bevana N, Kirakowskib J, Maissela J. 1991. What is usability?. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on HCI, Stuttgart, Germany, September 1–6, 1991, ed. HJ Bullinger 24 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Medina LA, Kremer GEO, Wysk RA. 2013. Supporting medical device development: a standard product design process model. J. Eng. Des. 24:283–119
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Jagtap S, Larsson T. 2019. Resource-limited societies, integrated design solutions, and stakeholder input. She Ji J. Des. Econ. Innov. 5:4285–303
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Shah SGS, Robinson I. 2008. Medical device technologies: Who is the user?. Int. J. Healthc. Technol. Manag. 9:2181–97
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Coulentianos MJ, Rodriguez-Calero I, Daly SR, Burridge J, Sienko KH. 2022. Stakeholders, prototypes, and settings of front-end medical device design activities. J. Med. Devices 16:3031010
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Deininger M, Daly SR, Lee JC, Seifert CM, Sienko KH. 2019. Prototyping for context: exploring stakeholder feedback based on prototype type, stakeholder group and question type. Res. Eng. Des. 30:4453–71
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Barkin S, Schlundt D, Smith P. 2013. Community-engaged research perspectives: then and now. Acad. Pediatr. 13:293–97
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L. 2012. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA 307:151583–84
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Greenaway C, Hargreaves S, Barkati S, Coyle CM, Gobbi F et al. 2020. COVID-19: exposing and addressing health disparities among ethnic minorities and migrants. J. Travel Med. 27:7taaa113
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Xing F, Peng G, Zhang B, Li S, Liang X. 2021. Socio-technical barriers affecting large-scale deployment of AI-enabled wearable medical devices among the ageing population in China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 166:120609
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Fuerch JH, Sanderson P, Barshi I, Liley H. 2019. Developing safe devices for neonatal care. Semin. Perinatol. 43:8151176
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Burleson G, Herrera SVS, Toyama K, Sienko KH. 2023. Incorporating contextual factors into engineering design processes: an analysis of novice behavior. J. Mech. Des. 145:2021401
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Theobald S, Brandes N, Gyapong M, El-Saharty S, Proctor E et al. 2018. Implementation research: new imperatives and opportunities in global health. Lancet 392:101602214–28
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    MacDonald L, Thomas E, Javernick-Will A, Austin-Breneman J, Aranda I et al. 2022. Aligning learning objectives and approaches in global engineering graduate programs: review and recommendations by an interdisciplinary working group. Dev. Eng. 7:100095
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Sabet Sarvestani A, Sienko KH 2018. Medical device landscape for communicable and noncommunicable diseases in low-income countries. Glob. Health 14:165
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Clyde P, Haig A, Jhaveri E, Karazja M, Leroueil P et al. 2019. 25 years of health care delivery in low- and middle-income countries. William Davidson Inst. Univ. Mich. Artic. Ser. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3393152
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Howitt P, Darzi A, Yang G-Z, Ashrafian H, Atun R et al. 2012. Technologies for global health. Lancet 380:9840507–35
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Rogers EM. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations New York: Free Press, 5th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Rogers EM, Pareek U. 1977. Acceptability of fertility regulating mechanisms: a synthesis of research literature Rep. Stanford University, Institute for Communication Research Stanford, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Yock P. 2015. Needs-based innovation: the biodesign process. BMJ Innov. 1:3
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Sulzer J, Karfeld-Sulzer LS. 2021. Our child's TBI: a rehabilitation engineer's personal experience, technological approach, and lessons learned. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 18:159
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Coulentianos MJ, Rodriguez-Calero I, Daly SR, Sienko KH. 2020. Stakeholder engagement with prototypes during front-end medical device design: Who is engaged with what prototype?. Proceedings of the 2020 Design of Medical Devices Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, April 6–9, 2020, V001T08A001 New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Bell D, Peeling RW. 2006. Evaluation of rapid diagnostic tests: malaria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 4:9S34–38
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Bengtson M, Bharadwaj M, ten Bosch A, Nyakundi H, Matoke-Muhia D et al. 2020. Matching development of point-of-care diagnostic tests to the local context: a case study of visceral leishmaniasis in Kenya and Uganda. Glob. Health Sci. Pract. 8:3549–65. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-20-00028
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Sluiter M, Onasanya A, Oladepo O, van Engelen J, Keshinro M et al. 2020. Target product profiles for devices to diagnose urinary schistosomiasis in Nigeria. 2020 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC)1–8. New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Jagtap S, Larsson T 2018. Design and frugal innovations: three roles of resource-poor people. DS 92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference D Marjanović, M Štorga, S Škec, N Bojčetić, N Pavković 2657–68. Glasgow, Scotland: Design Society
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Wieland ML, Njeru JW, Alahdab F, Doubeni CA, Sia IG. 2021. Community-engaged approaches for minority recruitment into clinical research: a scoping review of the literature. Mayo Clin. Proc. 96:3733–43
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Jagtap S. 2021. Design, frugal innovations, and low-resource settings: an analysis of five contextual aspects. Design for TomorrowVolume 2705–14. Singapore: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Atman C, Borgford-Parnell J, Deibel K, Kang A, Ng WH et al. 2009. Matters of context in design. About: Designinged. J McDonnell, P Lloydpp. 399–416 Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Mazzurco A, Daniel S. 2020. Socio-technical thinking of students and practitioners in the context of humanitarian engineering. J. Eng. Educ. 109:2243–61
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Leydens JA, Lucena JC. 2017. Engineering Justice: Transforming Engineering Education and Practice New York: John Wiley & Sons
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Jagtap S. 2019. Key guidelines for designing integrated solutions to support development of marginalised societies. J. Clean. Prod. 219:148–65
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Burleson G, Sienko KH, Toyama K. 2020. Incorporating contextual factors into a design process: an analysis of engineering for global development literature. Proceedings of the ASME 2020 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Volume 11B: 46th Design Automation Conference (DAC), V11BT11A009 New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Burleson GE, Herrera SVS, Toyama K, Sienko KH. 2021. Initial characterization of novice engineering designers’ consideration of contextual factors. Proc. Des. Soc. 1:1857–66
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Atman CJ, Adams RS, Cardella ME, Turns J, Mosborg S, Saleem J. 2007. Engineering design processes: a comparison of students and expert practitioners. J. Eng. Educ. 96:4359–79
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Vincent C, Blandford A. 2011. Designing for safety and usability: user-centered techniques in medical device design practice. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 55:1793–97
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Giacomin J. 2014. What is human centred design?. Design J. 17:4606–23
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Steen M. 2011. Tensions in human-centred design. CoDesign 7:145–60
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Holeman I, Kane D. 2020. Human-centered design for global health equity. Inf. Technol. Dev. 26:3477–505
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Kouprie M, Visser FS. 2009. A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user's life. J. Eng. Des. 20:5437–48
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Morris S, Cormican K 2012. Towards empathic design in the Irish medical device industry. DS 70: Proceedings of DESIGN 2012, the 12th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia D Marjanović, M Štorga, N Pavković, N Bojčetić 1039–48. Glasgow, Scotland: Design Society
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Li J, Surma-aho A, Chang-Arana ÁM, Hölttä-Otto K. 2021. Understanding customers across national cultures: the influence of national cultural differences on designers’ empathic accuracy. J. Eng. Des. 32:10538–58
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Heylighen A, Dong A. 2019. To empathise or not to empathise? Empathy and its limits in design. Des. Stud. 65:107–24
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 52a.
    Moses N, Daly S, Handley J, Sienko K 2023. Exploring engineering student perspectives on designer positionality in design for ‘social good’ collaborations. Accepted abstract for 2023 Clive L. Dym Mudd Design Workshop, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 53.
    Schleimer E, Pearce J, Barnecut A, Rowles W, Lizee A et al. 2020. A precision medicine tool for patients with multiple sclerosis (the Open MS BioScreen): human-centered design and development. J. Med. Internet Res. 22:7e15605
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 54.
    Contreras-Vidal JL, Kilicarslan A, Huang H(H), Grossman RG. 2015. Human-centered design of wearable neuroprostheses and exoskeletons. AI Mag. 36:412–22
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 55.
    Wiggermann N, Rempel K, Zerhusen RM, Pelo T, Mann N. 2019. Human-centered design process for a hospital bed: promoting patient safety and ease of use. Ergon. Des. 27:24–12
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 56.
    Linnes JC, Johansen E, Kumar AA. 2017. Incorporating the needs of users into the development of diagnostics for global health: a framework and two case studies. Diagnostic Devices with Microfluidics F Piraino, Š Selimović, K Iniewski 219–50. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. , 1st ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 57.
    Rager TL, Koepfli C, Khan WA, Ahmed S, Mahmud ZH, Clayton KN 2021. Usability of rapid cholera detection device (OmniVis) for water quality workers in Bangladesh: iterative convergent mixed methods study. J. Med. Internet Res. 23:5e22973
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 58.
    Jiang KC, Mohedas I, Biks GA, Adefris M, Tadesse Adafrie T et al. 2020. Assessing the usability of a task-shifting device for inserting subcutaneous contraceptive implants for use in low-income countries. J. Med. Devices 14:1011108
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 59.
    Davis K, Schoenbaum SC, Audet A-M. 2005. A 2020 vision of patient-centered primary care. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 20:10953–57
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 60.
    Chao KZ, Riskin DJ, Krummel TM. 2010. A patient-centered, ethical approach to medical device innovation. AMA J. Ethics 12:291–95
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 61.
    Hudson DL, Cohen ME. 2007. Technologies for patient-centered healthcare. 2007 IEEE/NIH Life Science Systems and Applications Workshop148–51. New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 62.
    Bertoni D, Isaiah A. 2019. Towards patient-centered diagnosis of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea—a review of biomedical engineering strategies. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 16:7617–29
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 63.
    France DJ, Throop P, Allen L, Dipen A, Parsons A et al. 2005. Does patient-centered design guarantee patient safety? Using human factors engineering to find a balance between provider and patient needs. J. Patient Saf. 1:3145–53
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 64.
    Sell SK. 2021. 21st century capitalism and innovation for health. Glob. Policy 12:S612–20
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 65.
    Blomberg J, Burrell M. 2007. An ethnographic approach to design. The Human-Computer Interaction Handbooked. A Sears, JA Jackopp. 984–86 Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 66.
    Kensing F, Blomberg J. 1998. Participatory design: issues and concerns. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 7:3167–85
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 67.
    Sousa C, Neves JC, Damásio MJ. 2022. Empowerment and well-being through participatory action research and accessible gaming: a case study with adults with intellectual disability. Front. Educ. 7: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.879626
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. 68.
    Krah EF, de Kruijf JG. 2016. Exploring the ambivalent evidence base of mobile health (mHealth): a systematic literature review on the use of mobile phones for the improvement of community health in Africa. Digit. Health 2:2055207616679264
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 69.
    Cornet VP, Toscos T, Bolchini D, Ghahari RR, Ahmed R et al. 2020. Untold stories in user-centered design of mobile health: practical challenges and strategies learned from the design and evaluation of an app for older adults with heart failure. JMIR mHealth uHealth 8:7e17703
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 70.
    Johansen E, Fisher M, Lantada AD, De Maria C, Ahluwalia A. 2021. Human centered design principles for open-source medical devices. Engineering Open-Source Medical Devices: A Reliable Approach for Safe, Sustainable and Accessible Healthcare101–26. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 71.
    Mohedas I, Sabet Sarvestani A, Daly SR, Sienko KH 2015. Applying design ethnography to product evaluation: a case example of medical device in a low-resource setting. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED15), Milan, Italy, July 27–30, 2015401–10. Glasgow, Scotland: Design Society
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 72.
    Göttgens I, Oertelt-Prigione S. 2021. The application of human-centered design approaches in health research and innovation: a narrative review of current practices. JMIR mHealth uHealth 9:12e28102
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 73.
    Sabet Sarvestani A, Sienko KH 2013. User-based design approach to develop a traditional adult male circumcision device. J. Med. Devices 7:2020927
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 74.
    World Health Organ. (WHO) 2020. Preventing HIV Through Safe Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision for Adolescent Boys and Men in Generalized HIV Epidemics: Recommendations and Key Considerations: Policy Brief Geneva: WHO
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 75.
    Sabet Sarvestani A, Sienko K 2014. Design ethnography as an engineering tool. DEMAND: ASME Global Development Review Issue 2 2–7
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 76.
    Yip MH, Phaal R, Probert DR. 2014. Stakeholder engagement in early stage product-service system development for healthcare informatics. Eng. Manag. J. 26:352–62
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 77.
    Torous J, Wykes T. 2020. Opportunities from the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic for transforming psychiatric care with telehealth. JAMA Psychiatry 77:121205–6
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 78.
    Duque E, Fonseca G, Vieira H, Gontijo G, Ishitani L. 2019. A systematic literature review on user centered design and participatory design with older people. Proceedings of the 18th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems1–11. New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 79.
    Antonini M-J, Plana D, Srinivasan S, Atta L, Achanta A et al. 2021. A crisis-responsive framework for medical device development applied to the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Digit. Health 3:617106
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 80.
    Rodriguez-Calero I, Daly S, Burleson G, Sienko K. 2023. Prototyping strategies to engage stakeholders during front-end design: a study across three design domains. J. Mech. Des. 145:4041413
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 81.
    Rodriguez-Calero IB, Coulentianos MJ, Daly SR, Burridge J, Sienko KH. 2020. Prototyping strategies for stakeholder engagement during front-end design: design practitioners’ approaches in the medical device industry. Des. Stud. 71:100977
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 82.
    Coulentianos MJ, Rodriguez-Calero I, Daly SR, Sienko KH. 2020. Global health front-end medical device design: the use of prototypes to engage stakeholders. Dev. Eng. 5:100055
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 83.
    Deininger M, Daly SR, Sienko KH, Lee JC, Kaufmann EE. 2019. Investigating prototyping approaches of Ghanaian novice designers. Des. Sci. 5:e6
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 84.
    Deininger M, Daly SR, Sienko KH, Lee JC. 2017. Novice designers’ use of prototypes in engineering design. Des. Stud. 51:25–65
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 85.
    Simonsen J, Robertson T. 2012. Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design Oxford, UK: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 86.
    de la Rosa J, Ruecker S, Nohora CG. 2021. Systemic mapping and design research: towards participatory democratic engagement. She Ji J. Des. Econ. Innov. 7:2282–98
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 87.
    Privitera MB, Southee D, Evans M. 2015. Collaborative design processes in medical device development. The Value of Design Research—Proceedings of the 11th European Academy of Design Conference Paris: Eur. Acad. Design
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 88.
    Merkel S, Kucharski A. 2019. Participatory design in gerontechnology: a systematic literature review. Gerontologist 59:1e16–25
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 89.
    Gheorghe F. 2018. Participatory design methods for medical device innovation in Uganda Doctoral Diss. Univ. British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada:
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 90.
    Jagtap S. 2021. Co-design with marginalised people: designers’ perceptions of barriers and enablers. CoDesign 18:279–302
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 91.
    Mattson CA, Wood AE. 2014. Nine principles for design for the developing world as derived from the engineering literature. J. Mech. Des. 136:12121403
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 92.
    Drain A, Shekar A, Grigg N. 2021. Insights, solutions and empowerment: a framework for evaluating participatory design. CoDesign 17:11–21
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 93.
    Zubrycki I, Szafarczyk I, Granosik G. 2019. Participatory design of a robot for demonstrating an epileptic seizure. Adv. Robot. 33:7–8338–49
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 94.
    Ahmed R, Toscos T, Ghahari RR, Holden RJ, Martin E et al. 2019. Visualization of cardiac implantable electronic device data for older adults using participatory design. Appl. Clin. Inform. 10:4707–18
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 95.
    Hussain S, Sanders EB-N. 2012. Fusion of horizons: co-designing with Cambodian children who have prosthetic legs, using generative design tools. CoDesign 8:143–79
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 96.
    Hussain S, Sanders EB-N, Steinert M. 2012. Participatory design with marginalized people in developing countries: challenges and opportunities experienced in a field study in Cambodia. Int. J. Des. 6:291–109
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 97.
    Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. 1998. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 19:173–202
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 98.
    Wallerstein N, Duran B. 2010. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am. J. Public Health 100:Suppl. 1S40–46
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 99.
    Balazs CL, Morello-Frosch R. 2013. The three Rs: how community-based participatory research strengthens the rigor, relevance, and reach of science. Environ. Justice 6:19–16
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 100.
    Kia-Keating M, Capous D, Liu S, Adams J. 2017. Using community based participatory research and human centered design to address violence-related health disparities among Latino/a youth. Fam. Commun. Health 40:2160–69
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 101.
    Chen E, Leos C, Kowitt SD, Moracco KE. 2020. Enhancing community-based participatory research through human-centered design strategies. Health Promot. Pract. 21:137–48
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 102.
    Rodriguez NM, Wong WS, Liu L, Dewar R, Klapperich CM. 2016. A fully integrated paperfluidic molecular diagnostic chip for the extraction, amplification, and detection of nucleic acids from clinical samples. Lab Chip 16:4753–63
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 103.
    Rodriguez NM, Casanova F, Pages G, Claure L, Pedreira M et al. 2020. Community-based participatory design of a community health worker breast cancer training intervention for South Florida Latinx farmworkers. PLOS ONE 15:10e0240827
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 104.
    Rodriguez NM. 2021. Participatory innovation for human papillomavirus screening to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer. Lancet Glob. Health 9:5e582–83
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 105.
    Rodriguez NM, Brennan LP, Claure L, Balian LN, Kasting ML et al. 2023. Clinician practices, knowledge, and attitudes regarding primary human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: a mixed-methods study in Indiana. Prev. Med. Rep. 31:102070
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 105a.
    Rodriguez NM, Brennan LP, Claure L, Balian LN, Champion VL, Forman MR 2023. Leveraging COVID-era innovation for cervical cancer screening: clinician awareness and attitudes toward self-sampling and rapid testing for HPV detection. PLOS ONE 18:3e0282853
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 106.
    Costanza-Chock S. 2020. Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 107.
    Huffstetler HE, Boland SE, Williams CR, Rice DK, Ramaswamy R. 2022. Beyond virtue-signaling: advancing equity through design justice and public health critical race praxis. Health Equity 6:121–26
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 108.
    Ogbonnaya-Ogburu IF, Smith ADR, To A, Toyama K. 2020. Critical race theory for HCI. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems1–16. New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 109.
    Costanza-Chock S. 2018. Design justice: towards an intersectional feminist framework for design theory and practice. Proceedings of the Design Research Society 2018, Rochester, NY: Soc. Sci. Res. Netw.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 110.
    Zidaru T, Morrow EM, Stockley R. 2021. Ensuring patient and public involvement in the transition to AI-assisted mental health care: a systematic scoping review and agenda for design justice. Health Expect. 24:41072–124
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 111.
    Nieusma D, Riley D. 2010. Designs on development: engineering, globalization, and social justice. Eng. Stud. 2:129–59
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 112.
    Baxter G, Sommerville I. 2011. Socio-technical systems: from design methods to systems engineering. Interact. Comput. 23:14–17
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 113.
    Fox S, Lim C, Hirsch T, Rosner DK. 2020. Accounting for design activism: on the positionality and politics of designerly intervention. Des. Issues 36:15–18. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00571
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  116. 114.
    Sienko KH, Young MR, Effah Kaufmann E, Obed S, Danso KA et al. 2018. Global health design: clinical immersion, opportunity identification and definition, and design experiences. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 34:2 Part B 780–800
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 115.
    Richards-Kortum R, Gray LV, Oden M. 2012. Engaging undergraduates in global health technology innovation. Science 336:6080430–31
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 116.
    Ploss B, Douglas TS, Glucksberg M, Kaufmann EE, Malkin RA et al. 2017. Part II: U.S.–Sub-Saharan Africa educational partnerships for medical device design. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 45:112489–93
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 117.
    Wickerson G. 2022. The culture of engineering overlooks the people it's supposed to serve. Scientific American Feb. 24. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-culture-of-engineering-overlooks-the-people-its-supposed-to-serve/
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 118.
    Fawzy A, Wu TD, Wang K, Robinson ML, Farha J et al. 2022. Racial and ethnic discrepancy in pulse oximetry and delayed identification of treatment eligibility among patients with COVID-19. JAMA Intern. Med. 182:7730–38
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 118a.
    Food Drug Admin 2022.Review of pulse oximeters and factors that can impact their accuracy. Paper presented at the 2022 meeting of the Anesthesiology Devices Advisory Committee Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Nov. 1, https://www.fda.gov/media/162709/download
  122. 119.
    World Health Organ 2022. Neglected tropical diseases. World Health Organization https://www.who.int/health-topics/neglected-tropical-diseases#tab=tab_1
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 120.
    Ellis K, Munro D, Clarke J. 2022. Endometriosis is undervalued: a call to action. Front. Glob. Women's Health 3:902371
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-081922-024834
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-081922-024834
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error