BACKGROUND: Non-use of and dissatisfaction with ankle foot orthoses (AFOs) occurs frequently. The objective of this study is to gain insight in the conversation during the intake and examination phase, from the clients’ perspective, at two levels: 1) the attention for the activities and the context in which these activities take place, and 2) the quality of the conversation. METHODOLOGY: Semi-structured interviews were performed with 12 AFO users within a two-week period following intake and examination. In these interviews, and subsequent data analysis, extra attention was paid to the needs and wishes of the user, the desired activities and the environments in which these activities take place. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Activities and environments were seldom inquired about or discussed during the intake and examination phase. Also, activities were not placed in the context of their specific environment. As a result, profundity lacks. Consequently, orthotists based their designs on a ‘reduced reality’ because important and valuable contextual information that might benefit prescription and design of assistive devices was missed. A model is presented for mapping user activities and user environments in a systematic way. The term ‘user practices’ is introduced to emphasise the concept of activities within a specific environment.
LINK
PURPOSE: Clinical examination is often the first step to diagnose shock and estimate cardiac index. In the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I, we assessed the association and diagnostic performance of clinical signs for estimation of cardiac index in critically ill patients.METHODS: In this prospective, single-centre cohort study, we included all acutely ill patients admitted to the ICU and expected to stay > 24 h. We conducted a protocolised clinical examination of 19 clinical signs followed by critical care ultrasonography for cardiac index measurement. Clinical signs were associated with cardiac index and a low cardiac index (< 2.2 L min-1 m2) in multivariable analyses. Diagnostic test accuracies were also assessed.RESULTS: We included 1075 patients, of whom 783 (73%) had a validated cardiac index measurement. In multivariable regression, respiratory rate, heart rate and rhythm, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, central-to-peripheral temperature difference, and capillary refill time were statistically independently associated with cardiac index, with an overall R2 of 0.30 (98.5% CI 0.25-0.35). A low cardiac index was observed in 280 (36%) patients. Sensitivities and positive and negative predictive values were below 90% for all signs. Specificities above 90% were observed only for 110/280 patients, who had atrial fibrillation, systolic blood pressures < 90 mmHg, altered consciousness, capillary refill times > 4.5 s, or skin mottling over the knee.CONCLUSIONS: Seven out of 19 clinical examination findings were independently associated with cardiac index. For estimation of cardiac index, clinical examination was found to be insufficient in multivariable analyses and in diagnostic accuracy tests. Additional measurements such as critical care ultrasonography remain necessary.
DOCUMENT
from the article: "In the Netherlands, housing corporations are increasingly adopting self-service technologies (SSTs) to support affairs their tenants need to arrange. The purpose of the study is to examine the customers’ motivations of using SSTs in the context of the Dutch public housing sector. An empirical investigation is presented based on a sample of 1,209 tenants. Using partial least squares (PLS), the acceptance model of Blut, Wang, and Schoefer is adopted and tested. The results show that especially the need for interaction negatively influence the adoption of SSTs by tenants. Positively, subjective norm and self-efficacy influence the adoption. Furthermore, playfulness negatively influences this adoption. Developers of SSTs should focus on its ulitalitarian function, rather then invest in its playfulness. Moreover, adoption is propelled by the encouragement of others. This can be enhanced by positive word-of mouth and should therefore stimulated."
DOCUMENT
In the last decade, the automotive industry has seen significant advancements in technology (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and autonomous vehicles) that presents the opportunity to improve traffic safety, efficiency, and comfort. However, the lack of drivers’ knowledge (such as risks, benefits, capabilities, limitations, and components) and confusion (i.e., multiple systems that have similar but not identical functions with different names) concerning the vehicle technology still prevails and thus, limiting the safety potential. The usual sources (such as the owner’s manual, instructions from a sales representative, online forums, and post-purchase training) do not provide adequate and sustainable knowledge to drivers concerning ADAS. Additionally, existing driving training and examinations focus mainly on unassisted driving and are practically unchanged for 30 years. Therefore, where and how drivers should obtain the necessary skills and knowledge for safely and effectively using ADAS? The proposed KIEM project AMIGO aims to create a training framework for learner drivers by combining classroom, online/virtual, and on-the-road training modules for imparting adequate knowledge and skills (such as risk assessment, handling in safety-critical and take-over transitions, and self-evaluation). AMIGO will also develop an assessment procedure to evaluate the impact of ADAS training on drivers’ skills and knowledge by defining key performance indicators (KPIs) using in-vehicle data, eye-tracking data, and subjective measures. For practical reasons, AMIGO will focus on either lane-keeping assistance (LKA) or adaptive cruise control (ACC) for framework development and testing, depending on the system availability. The insights obtained from this project will serve as a foundation for a subsequent research project, which will expand the AMIGO framework to other ADAS systems (e.g., mandatory ADAS systems in new cars from 2020 onwards) and specific driver target groups, such as the elderly and novice.
Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a significant contributor to work incapacity. Although effective therapeutic options are scarce, exercises supervised by a physiotherapist have shown to be effective. However, the effects found in research studies tend to be small, likely due to the heterogeneous nature of patients' complaints and movement limitations. Personalized treatment is necessary as a 'one-size-fits-all' approach is not sufficient. High-tech solutions consisting of motions sensors supported by artificial intelligence will facilitate physiotherapists to achieve this goal. To date, physiotherapists use questionnaires and physical examinations, which provide subjective results and therefore limited support for treatment decisions. Objective measurement data obtained by motion sensors can help to determine abnormal movement patterns. This information may be crucial in evaluating the prognosis and designing the physiotherapy treatment plan. The proposed study is a small cohort study (n=30) that involves low back pain patients visiting a physiotherapist and performing simple movement tasks such as walking and repeated forward bending. The movements will be recorded using sensors that estimate orientation from accelerations, angular velocities and magnetometer data. Participants complete questionnaires about their pain and functioning before and after treatment. Artificial analysis techniques will be used to link the sensor and questionnaire data to identify clinically relevant subgroups based on movement patterns, and to determine if there are differences in prognosis between these subgroups that serve as a starting point of personalized treatments. This pilot study aims to investigate the potential benefits of using motion sensors to personalize the treatment of low back pain. It serves as a foundation for future research into the use of motion sensors in the treatment of low back pain and other musculoskeletal or neurological movement disorders.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
