Co-creation and User Perspectives for Upper Limb Prosthetics

People who either use an upper limb prosthesis and/or have used services provided by a prosthetic rehabilitation centre, experience limitations of currently available prosthetic devices. Collaboration between academia and a broad range of stakeholders, can lead to the development of solutions that address peoples' needs. By doing so, the rate of prosthetic device abandonment can decrease. Co-creation is an approach that can enable collaboration of this nature to occur throughout the research process. We present findings of a co-creation project that gained user perspectives from a user survey, and a subsequent workshop involving: people who use an upper limb prosthesis and/or have experienced care services (users), academics, industry experts, charity executives, and clinicians. The survey invited users to prioritise six themes, which academia, clinicians, and industry should focus on over the next decade. The prioritisation of the themes concluded in the following order, with the first as the most important: function, psychology, aesthetics, clinical service, collaboration, and media. Within five multi-stakeholder groups, the workshop participants discussed challenges and collaborative opportunities for each theme. Workshop groups prioritised the themes based on their discussions, to highlight opportunities for further development. Two groups chose function, one group chose clinical service, one group chose collaboration, and another group chose media. The identified opportunities are presented within the context of the prioritised themes, including the importance of transparent information flow between all stakeholders; user involvement throughout research studies; and routes to informing healthcare policy through collaboration. As the field of upper limb prosthetics moves toward in-home research, we present co-creation as an approach that can facilitate user involvement throughout the duration of such studies.

[1]  Janne M. Hahne,et al.  Longitudinal Case Study of Regression-Based Hand Prosthesis Control in Daily Life , 2020, Frontiers in Neuroscience.

[2]  Rinaldo Sacchetti,et al.  Impact of Michelangelo prosthetic hand: Findings from a crossover longitudinal study. , 2015, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[3]  P. Kyberd,et al.  Survey of Upper-Extremity Prosthesis Users in Sweden and the United Kingdom , 2007 .

[4]  Cynthia A Chestek,et al.  Factors associated with interest in novel interfaces for upper limb prosthesis control , 2017, PloS one.

[5]  M. Granat,et al.  Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review , 2020, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[6]  Loredana Zollo,et al.  Literature Review on Needs of Upper Limb Prosthesis Users , 2016, Front. Neurosci..

[7]  J. Tseng,et al.  Payment to Research Participants , 2017 .

[8]  Elaine Biddiss,et al.  Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[9]  Dario Farina,et al.  Translating Research on Myoelectric Control into Clinics—Are the Performance Assessment Methods Adequate? , 2017, Front. Neurorobot..

[10]  K. Seah COVID-19: Exposing digital poverty in a pandemic , 2020, International Journal of Surgery.

[11]  Jo Maybin Policy Analysis and Policy Know-how: A Case Study of Civil Servants in England’s Department of Health , 2015 .

[12]  C. K. van der Sluis,et al.  Upper Limb Absence: Predictors of Work Participation and Work Productivity. , 2016, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[13]  Camille Nebeker,et al.  Approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study , 2019, BMJ Open.

[14]  E. Biddiss,et al.  Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years , 2007, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[15]  Christian Cipriani,et al.  Objectives, criteria and methods for the design of the SmartHand transradial prosthesis , 2009, Robotica.

[16]  L. Battistella,et al.  Abandonment of assistive products: assessing abandonment levels and factors that impact on it , 2018, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[17]  Kianoush Nazarpour,et al.  Arduino-Based Myoelectric Control: Towards Longitudinal Study of Prosthesis Use , 2021, Sensors.

[18]  M. Dyson,et al.  Co-Creation Facilitates Translational Research on Upper Limb Prosthetics , 2021, Prosthesis.

[19]  J. Davidson A survey of the satisfaction of upper limb amputees with their prostheses, their lifestyles, and their abilities. , 2002, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[20]  Tyler Davis,et al.  Portable Take-Home System Enables Proportional Control and High-Resolution Data Logging With a Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Bionic Arm , 2020, Frontiers in Robotics and AI.

[21]  M.R.M. Crul,et al.  Models of Co-Creation , 2016 .

[22]  Trisha Greenhalgh,et al.  Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees , 2015, BMC Medical Ethics.

[23]  J. Langley,et al.  Risk & Reward. Exploring Design’s role in measuring outcomes in health , 2019, The Design Journal.

[24]  P. Gøtzsche,et al.  Collaboration between academics and industry in clinical trials: cross sectional study of publications and survey of lead academic authors , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[25]  Joe Langley,et al.  The need for distributed co-design in healthcare contexts , 2018 .

[26]  O. Aszmann,et al.  Current rates of prosthetic usage in upper-limb amputees – have innovations had an impact on device acceptance? , 2020, Disability and rehabilitation.

[27]  Dr. Gary Hickey The potential for coproduction to add value to research , 2018, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[28]  Sridhar P. Arjunan,et al.  Prosthetic hand control: A multidisciplinary review to identify strengths, shortcomings, and the future , 2019, Biomed. Signal Process. Control..

[29]  D G Altman,et al.  GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[30]  J. Sloan,et al.  Patient engagement in research: a systematic review , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[31]  Control of Prosthetic Hands: Challenges and emerging avenues , 2020 .

[32]  Peter H. Jones Contexts of Co-creation: Designing with System Stakeholders , 2018 .

[33]  L Kenney,et al.  Upper limb activity in myoelectric prosthesis users is biased towards the intact limb and appears unrelated to goal-directed task performance , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[34]  Kianoush Nazarpour A more human prosthetic hand , 2020, Science Robotics.

[35]  K. Oliver,et al.  Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? , 2017, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[36]  Kathryn Oliver,et al.  The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? , 2019, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[37]  Todd A. Kuiken,et al.  Pattern recognition and direct control home use of a multi-articulating hand prosthesis , 2019, 2019 IEEE 16th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR).

[38]  Kristin Østlie,et al.  Prosthesis rejection in acquired major upper-limb amputees: a population-based survey , 2012, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[39]  Colin Tysall,et al.  A Systematic Review of the Impact of Patient and Public Involvement on Service Users, Researchers and Communities , 2014, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[40]  E. Biddiss,et al.  Upper-Limb Prosthetics: Critical Factors in Device Abandonment , 2007, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[41]  Z. C. Thumser,et al.  Long-Term Home-Use of Sensory-Motor-Integrated Bidirectional Bionic Prosthetic Arms Promotes Functional, Perceptual, and Cognitive Changes , 2020, Frontiers in Neuroscience.

[42]  Tyler Davis,et al.  Portable Take-Home System Enables Proportional Control and High-Resolution Data Logging With a Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Bionic Arm , 2020, bioRxiv.

[43]  Dustin J. Tyler,et al.  Learning of Artificial Sensation Through Long-Term Home Use of a Sensory-Enabled Prosthesis , 2019, Front. Neurosci..

[44]  K Postema,et al.  Prosthesis rejection in children with a unilateral congenital arm defect , 1999, Clinical rehabilitation.

[45]  M. Dyson,et al.  Perception of game-based rehabilitation in upper-limb prosthetic training: a survey of users and researchers , 2020, medRxiv.

[46]  M. Dyson,et al.  Perception of Game-Based Rehabilitation in Upper Limb Prosthetic Training: Survey of Users and Researchers , 2020, JMIR serious games.

[47]  Anthony Shakeshaft,et al.  What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Proposed Definition for Health Interventions , 2020, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[48]  Alicia J. Davis,et al.  Surveying the interest of individuals with upper limb loss in novel prosthetic control techniques , 2015, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[49]  Oli Williams,et al.  Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production , 2020, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[50]  C. Jang,et al.  A Survey on Activities of Daily Living and Occupations of Upper Extremity Amputees , 2011, Annals of rehabilitation medicine.

[51]  Gary Hickey,et al.  Co-production from proposal to paper , 2018, Nature.