This paper is a case report of why and how CDIO became a shared framework for Community Service Engineering (CSE) education. CSE can be defined as the engineering of products, product-service combinations or services that fulfill well-being and health needs in the social domain, specifically for vulnerable groups in society. The vulnerable groups in society are growing, while fewer people work in health care. Finding technical, interdisciplinary solutions for their unmet needs is the territory of the Community Service Engineer. These unmet needs arise in local niche markets as well as in the global community, which makes it an interesting area for innovation and collaboration in an international setting. Therefore, five universities from Belgium, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Sweden decided to work together as hubs in local innovation networks to create international innovation power. The aim of the project is to develop education on undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate levels. The partners are not aiming at a joined degree or diploma, but offer a shared short track blended course (3EC), which each partner can supplement with their own courses or projects (up to 30EC). The blended curriculum in CSE is based on design thinking principles. Resources are shared and collaboration between students and staff is organized at different levels. CDIO was chosen as the common framework and the syllabus 2.0 was used as a blueprint for the CSE learning goals in each university. CSE projects are characterized by an interdisciplinary, human centered approach leading to inter-faculty collaboration. At the university of Porto, EUR-ACE was already used as the engineering education framework, so a translation table was used to facilitate common development. Even though Thomas More and KU Leuven are no CDIO partner, their choice for design thinking as the leading method in the post-Masters pilot course insured a good fit with the CDIO syllabus. At this point University West is applying for CDIO and they are yet to discover what the adaptation means for their programs and their emerging CSE initiatives. CDIO proved to fit well to in the authentic open innovation network context in which engineering students actively do CSE projects. CDIO became the common language and means to continuously improve the quality of the CSE curriculum.
Energy poverty is a growing concern in the Netherlands due to the rising gas and electricity prices. There are three main contributors to energy poverty: low income, high fuel costs and energy inefficient homes. Energy poverty effects can have significant consequences, influencing both physical and mental health, increasing the chances of becoming trapped in a cycle of poverty and social isolation. Usually, policy making approaches to combat energy poverty mainly focus on financial support on a household scale or on prices regulating efforts. However, this study argues that actions on a community level could also contribute to alleviating the impacts that energy poverty has on citizens’ lives. For example, community centers in low-income neighborhoods could potentially play a catalyst role in alleviating the effects of energy poverty by exemplifying energy saving techniques, catering to the needs of residents, increasing social cohesion and inspiring collective action. This research explores strategic design interventions through a whole system’s lens; social, energy and nature, that can be applied to the new VanHouten community center in the Oosterpark district of Groningen, the Netherlands. This is a historic, former school building, under a restoration and reuse process, owned by the municipality. Literature reviews, participatory events and interviews have been used to explore the possibilities to mitigate energy poverty, within a research by design process. Beyond the local case, the findings lay the groundwork for more systematic studies on how to alleviate the impact of energy poverty on a community level.
Across all health care settings, certain patients are perceived as ‘difficult’ by clinicians. This paper’s aim is to understand how certain patients come to be perceived and labelled as ‘difficult’ patients in community mental health care, through mixed-methods research in The Netherlands between June 2006 and October 2009. A literature review, a Delphi-study among experts, a survey study among professionals, a Grounded Theory interview study among ‘difficult’ patients, and three case studies of ‘difficult’ patients were undertaken. Analysis of the results of these qualitative and quantitative studies took place within the concept of the sick role, and resulted in the construction of a tentative explanatory model. The ‘difficult’ patient-label is associated with professional pessimism, passive treatment and possible discharge or referral out of care. The label is given by professionals when certain patient characteristics are present and a specific causal attribution (psychological, social or moral versus neurobiological) about the patient’s behaviours is made. The status of ‘difficult’ patient is easily reinforced by subsequent patient and professional behaviour, turning initial unusual help-seeking behaviour into ‘difficult’ or ineffective chronic illness behaviour, and ineffective professional behaviour. These findings illustrate that the course of mental illness, or at least the course of patients’ contact with mental health professionals and services, is determined by patient and professional and reinforced by the social and mental health care system. This model adds to the broader sick role concept a micro-perspective in which attribution and learning principles are incorporated. On a practical level, it implies that professionals need to look into their own role in the perpetuation of difficult behaviours as described here.
