University of Limerick Institutional Repository

Patient, clinician and product designer perspectives on the design of a dysphagia rehabilitation tool

DSpace Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Perry, Alison
dc.contributor.author Hussey, Tara
dc.date.accessioned 2016-03-18T14:40:54Z
dc.date.available 2016-03-18T14:40:54Z
dc.date.issued 2015
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10344/4955
dc.description non-peer-reviewed en_US
dc.description.abstract Background: There is an absence of available biofeedback tools for use in rehabilitation of people who have dysphagia. To create a suitable tool, ‘expert’ opinion from people such as clinicians and product designers is desirable to establish what may be achievable for a rehabilitation tool. More importantly, target clients are integral to any design process, as understanding their needs and potential patterns of use enhances the likelihood of a tool being designed to meet their needs. Objectives: To determine: (i) whether a dysphagia tool would be useful for patients rehabilitation; (ii) how would a dysphagia tool be used; (iii) the preferred product format for a dysphagia tool; (iv) views about a specific clinic-ready prototype tool, called OroPress. Method: Three focus groups were conducted with product designers, speech and language therapy clinicians, and post-surgical head and neck cancer patients. To facilitate discussion, a set of topic headings, photographs and models were introduced. Qualitative analysis was performed on the transcripted text using Glaserian coding principles to form open codes, selective codes and then themes. Results: Examination of concordance, across and within groups, identified five main themes: user interface, out-of-box experience, format, primary user usability, and views about OroPress. Conclusions: This study indicates that: (i) a tool was assessed as being useful and needed; (ii) a dysphagia tool would be used independently in the home, while connecting with a speech and language therapist electronically via the device; (iii) feedback was considered essential, with product designers and clinicians favouring visual, and patients preferring tactile. Preferred placement of the device varied; (iv) OroPress was considered to be bulky and unappealing. All groups agreed that it required reverse engineering. en_US
dc.language.iso eng en_US
dc.publisher University of Limerick en_US
dc.subject dysphagia en_US
dc.subject rehabilitation en_US
dc.subject speech and languge therapy en_US
dc.title Patient, clinician and product designer perspectives on the design of a dysphagia rehabilitation tool en_US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis en_US
dc.type.supercollection all_ul_research en_US
dc.type.supercollection ul_theses_dissertations en_US
dc.rights.accessrights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ULIR


Browse

My Account

Statistics