Hello, I am a postgraduate researcher in the School of Engineering at the University of Southampton. I started my PhD project, combining traditional computational modelling methods with public involvement, back in the autumn of 2020 but it was during my final-year undergraduate group project that I first came across public involvement. This group design project concerned the design and manufacture of a joint simulator to test the concept of a new implant for treating small-joint arthritis (APRICOT project). We sat in many meetings with surgeons and engineers to discuss the needs of a new implant however it wasn’t until it was suggested by one of my supervisors that we realised that there was an expertise missing; the lived-experience perspective.
It would be an understatement to say that attending the Saint Foundation OA support groups to talk with members of the public about our project changed my entire perspective on research. It showed me that engineering continues to be technology-driven rather than patient-led. How can we expect people to use the technology we design if we haven’t considered their perspectives or needs in the design process? One way to do that is by involving them at every stage possible. For instance, where reducing pain is the main goal of surgical intervention, the Saint’s Foundation group was very vocal in proposing that joint stability was a key biomechanical characteristic to improve; going as far as to state they would like to trust their joints again. This is something we did not consider at the early stages of the project, but after introducing public involvement, ended up being a key testing criterion for the final simulator.
Influenced by public contributions from the group design project, the PhD prioritised involving members of the public as early as possible. Three public contributors whom we previously met during the group design project, volunteered their time to attend four virtual meetings to discuss their lived experience with hand OA and the direction of the computational modelling work. Many interesting conversations were sparked. For example, learning that diet and clothing choice is a crucial part of daily living or that using electrical devices that aim to help perform a task can sometimes make symptoms worse, are all considerations that are rarely discussed or addressed in the literature and yet as researches we focus so heavily on the literature to inform our research questions. As the sessions went on, we strengthened our relationship and found fun and interesting ways to represent our discussions. At one point, we decided to create Google Jamboards, using colours and mind maps to visualise everything we were saying. These sessions weren’t about taking information from contributors; there was a mutual exchange of experience and mutual respect for everyone involved.
We are still creating content in new ways; shifting from a consultation approach to a co-productive one. Since we have dived into more ways contributors can get involved. The How Would You HAND-le this? Project would have never happened without them. In addition, with the PhD in full swing, they are part of its Steering Group, staying in the loop and being part of the decision-making process. I hope that we can continue to work together and share our experience with the wider community because it has been great to see how our partnership has evolved since we first met and how many more opportunities we can create to share our work and communicate to researchers the value of public involvement. I hope in the future more biomechanical engineers work with public contributors because with the public, we can share, collaborate and co-produce research/technology to ensure it is fit for purpose.