ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Patient and Designer Collaboration in Cocreating Technical Innovations in a Hospital-Based Makerspace: Qualitative Interview Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hospital-based makerspaces have emerged as collaborative environments for technical innovation, where designers cocreate with health care professionals and patients to resolve specific problems experienced in practice. As end users, patients can offer unique insights that could drive the development of patient-centered health care services or research. However, cocreation with patients within a makerspace environment is still rare-representing a missed opportunity to use their insights to develop innovations that meet their needs. Patient-designer interactions are underaddressed in the literature, and a deeper understanding could enhance their effectiveness. Objective: The study aimed to explore the experiences of designers and patients (or their carers) cocreating in an academic hospital-based makerspace, using a bottom-up approach. Methods: A generic qualitative study was conducted using semistructured individual interviews based on the Sunnybrook team-based competencies and design thinking methodology. A heterogeneous sample of 12 participants was recruited from a makerspace in an academic hospital in the Netherlands, comprising 6 with a designer's perspective and 6 with a patient's perspective. Most participants were involved in collaborative pairs, representing both perspectives within the same innovation project. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: Four key themes emerged from the data: (1) dealing with the patient's situations, (2) integrating different perspectives, (3) feeling valuable and useful, and (4) dynamic interplay and engagement. Collaboration with patients in this hospital-based makerspace was perceived as valuable for innovation development, benefiting from diverse perspectives. However, the degree of patient involvement varied, influenced by factors such as the patient's health status, reachability, and interest in innovation development. Conclusions: This study highlights the complexity of developing technical innovations that involve hospitalized patients. It offers valuable insights into how both patients and designers generally viewed their collaboration in the makerspace positively. Practical recommendations for hospital-based makerspaces include respecting patient autonomy, involving patients early and consistently throughout all development phases, maintaining communication beyond the formal collaboration period, and actively seeking feedback.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.