Participatory methods used in the evaluation of medical devices: a comparison of focus groups, interviews, and a survey.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder engagement in evaluation of medical devices is crucial for aligning devices with stakeholders' views, needs, and values. Methods for these engagements have however not been compared to analyse their relative merits for medical device evaluation. Therefore, we systematically compared these three methods in terms of themes, interaction, and time-investment. METHODS: We compared focus groups, interviews, and an online survey in a case-study on minimally invasive endoscopy-guided surgery for patients with intracerebral haemorrhage. The focus groups and interviews featured two rounds, one explorative focussing on individual perspectives, and one interactive focussing on the exchange of perspectives between participants. The comparison between methods was made in terms of number and content of themes, how participants interact, and hours invested by all researchers. RESULTS: The focus groups generated 34 themes, the interviews 58, and the survey 42. Various improvements for the assessment of the surgical procedure were only discussed in the interviews. In focus groups, participants were inclined to emphasise agreement and support, whereas the interviews consisted of questions and answers. The total time investment for researchers of focus groups was 95 h, of interviews 315 h, and survey 81 h. CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of medical device evaluation, interviews appeared to be the most appropriate method for understanding stakeholder views since they provide a scope and depth of information that is not generated by other methods. Focus groups were useful to rapidly bring views together. Surveys enabled a quick exploration. Researchers should account for these methodological differences and select the method that is suitable for their research aim.

An Overview of Stakeholders, Methods, Topics, and Challenges in Participatory Approaches Used in the Development of Medical Devices: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: There is a wide variety of participatory approaches to involve stakeholders in the development of medical devices, but there is no comprehensive overview of these approaches. We therefore studied what participatory approaches are used in the development of medical devices as well as the most important characteristics and challenges of these approaches. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review and searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for articles published between July 2014 and July 2019. Papers were included if they presented original research featuring any form of stakeholder participation in the development of medical devices. We used The Spectrum of Public Participation to categorise the approach of each paper. Subsequently, we described the characteristics of each approach: the stakeholders involved, data collection methods, and topics addressed. We also identified challenges of the approaches as reported by researchers. RESULTS: 277 papers were included, which could be categorised into three levels of participation: collaboration, involvement, and consultation. Patients and healthcare professionals are frequently engaged in all approaches. The most often used methods are workshops in the collaboration approach papers, and interviews in the involvement and consultation approach papers. Topics addressed in all approaches are: the problem, device requirements, design choices, testing, and procedural aspects of involvement. Reported challenges entail issues related to sampling, analysis, social dynamics, feasibility, and the limited number of topics that can be addressed. CONCLUSION: Participatory approaches reported in literature can be categorised in three overarching approaches that have comparable methodological characteristics. This suggests that if researchers want to apply a participatory approach it is not necessary to adopt a pre-determined approach, such as 'participatory action research' (PAR). Instead, they can independently determine the degree of participation, stakeholders, methods, topics, and strategies to account for challenges, making sure the participatory approach fits their research question and context.

Innovators' views on involving users and patients in surgical device development: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: Involving end-users and patients in the development of surgical devices, even when patients are not end-users, is deemed important in policy and in academia since it could improve strategic choices in research and development (R&D). Nonetheless, research into innovators' views on end-user and patient involvement is rare. This study explores what end-users and patients are being involved by innovators during development, what methods for involvement are being used and what topics are being discussed with these end-users and patients. DESIGN: A qualitative study featuring semi-structured interviews with innovators of surgical devices. Interviews were recorded and a thematic analysis was performed on verbatim transcripts. PARTICIPANTS: 15 interviews were conducted with 19 innovators of 14 surgical devices. SETTING: Innovation practices of surgical devices in the Netherlands and Belgium. RESULTS: End-users were engaged in R&D with formal methods and in unsystematic ways. These users all work in the clinical domain, for example, as surgeons or nurses. The innovators engaged users to analyse problems for which a device could be a solution, define functionalities, make design choices, analyse usability, ensure safety and improve aesthetics. Patients were rarely involved. Innovators stated that patients are not considered to be end-users, that physicians can represent patient interests and that involving patients is unethical as false expectations could be raised. CONCLUSION: Innovators involve end-users with methods and unsystematic ways in the development of surgical devices. Despite governmental calls for patient involvement in the development of medical devices and surgical devices, innovators do not generally involve patients.