2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2007.10.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Medical device development: The challenge for ergonomics

Abstract: High quality, well designed medical devices are necessary to provide safe and effective clinical care for patients as well as to ensure the health and safety of professional and lay device users. Capturing the user requirements of users and incorporating these into design is an essential component of this. The field of ergonomics has an opportunity to assist, not only with this area, but also to encourage a more general consideration of the user during medical device development. A review of the literature on … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
137
0
10

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 176 publications
(147 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
137
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…This standard is identical to the equivalent European standard (EN) and the British standard (BS) [7]. [50].…”
Section: Iec 60601-1mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…This standard is identical to the equivalent European standard (EN) and the British standard (BS) [7]. [50].…”
Section: Iec 60601-1mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main scope of these medical device regulations around the world is mainly on risk management to ensure that the device do not compromised with either clinical condition or safety of patient and its users. Medical device developers need to eliminate nor reduce as much as possible the risk associate with the device [7]. Taking decrease in non-renewable resource into measures, manufacturing sustainability is indeed a crucial issue.…”
Section: Medical Device and Regulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This strategy was based on several existing models for the design of medical devices ( Figure 2). [10][11][12] From November 2010 to September 2012 we conducted three substudies: (A) a user requirements study, (B) a usability test of the system in a laboratory situation and (C) a pilot study in two practices.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%