Using an Accelerated Undergraduate Needs Finding Course to Build Skills, Inspire Confidence, and Promote Interest in Health Technology Innovation.

Many undergraduate educational experiences in biomedical design lack clinical immersion-based needs finding training for students. Convinced of the merits of this type of training for undergraduates, but unable to offer a quarter-long course due to faculty and administrative constraints, we developed an accelerated block-plan course, during which students were dedicated solely to our class for 3 weeks. The course focused on the earliest stages of the health technology innovation process-conducting effective clinical observations and performing comprehensive need research and screening. We grounded the course in experiential learning theory (with hands-on, collaborative, and immersive experiences) and constructivist learning theory (where students integrated prior knowledge with new material on need-driven innovation). This paper describes the design of this intensive block-plan course and the teaching methods intended to support the achievement of five learning objectives. We used pre- and post-course surveys to gather self-reported data about the effect of the course on student learning. Despite the accelerated format, we saw statistically significant gains for all but one sub-measure across the learning objectives. Our experience supports key benefits of the block-plan model, and the results indicate that specific course design choices were effective in achieving positive learning outcomes. These design decisions include (1) opportunities for students to practice observations before entering the clinical setting; (2) a framework for the curriculum that reinforced important concepts iteratively throughout the program; (3) balanced coverage of preparation, clinical immersion, and need research; (4) extensive faculty and peer coaching; and (5) providing hands-on prototyping opportunities while staying focused on need characterization rather than solution development. Based on our experience, we expect that this model is replicable across institutions with limited bandwidth to support clinical immersion opportunities.

Lessons from Developing Multimedia Learning Materials for the Digital Generation.

Recognizing that traditional textbooks on need-driven health technology innovation were increasingly misaligned with the needs of today's undergraduate biomedical engineering students and the faculty who teach them, we initiated an effort to develop new learning materials for this audience. To guide our efforts, we conducted literature searches on best practices in the development of online content and engaging digital learners (primarily Gen-Z). We further held a series of discussions with biomedical engineering students and instructors at universities across the United States. This input led us to the development of a set of modular, online, multimedia learning materials specifically designed for the new generation of undergraduate learners. In this article, we present the key decisions that helped shape the project. We also share the results of feedback surveys and focus groups that shed light on how the materials have been preliminarily received. Finally, we reflect on challenges, opportunities, and lessons from this project that may be helpful to other initiatives focused on the creation of multimedia content for the digital generation.

Return of individual research results: What do participants prefer and expect?

Newer data platforms offer increased opportunity to share multidimensional health data with research participants, but the preferences of participants for which data to receive and how is evolving. Our objective is to describe the preferences and expectations of participants for the return of individual research results within Project Baseline Health Study (PBHS). The PBHS is an ongoing, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study with data from four initial enrollment sites. PBHS participants are recruited from the general population along with groups enriched for heart disease and cancer disease risk. Cross-sectional data on return of results were collected in 2017-2018 from an (1) in-person enrollment survey (n = 1,890), (2) benchmark online survey (n = 1,059), and (3) participant interviews (n = 21). The main outcomes included (1) preferences for type of information to be added next to returned results, (2) participant plans for sharing returned results with a non-study clinician, and (3) choice to opt-out of receiving genetic results. Results were compared by sociodemographic characteristics. Enrollment and benchmark survey respondents were 57.1% and 53.5% female, and 60.0% and 66.2% white, respectively. Participants preferred the following data types be added to returned results in the future: genetics (29.9%), heart imaging, (16.4%), study watch (15.8%), and microbiome (13.3%). Older adults (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.41-0.87) were less likely to want their genetic results returned next. Forty percent of participants reported that they would not share all returned results with their non-study clinicians. Black (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95) and Asian (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.73) participants were less likely, and older participants more likely (OR 1.45-1.61), to plan to share all results with their clinician than their counterparts. At enrollment, 5.8% of participants opted out of receiving their genetics results. The study showed that substantial heterogeneity existed in participant's preferences and expectations for return of results, and variations were related to sociodemographic characteristics.