OBJECTIVE: To develop a participatory approach in the evaluation of 3D printed patient-specific models of congenital heart disease (CHD) with different stakeholders who would potentially benefit from the technology (patients, parents, clinicians and nurses). METHODS: Workshops, focus groups and teaching sessions were organised, targeting different stakeholders. Sessions involved displaying and discussing different 3D models of CHD. Model evaluation involved response counts from questionnaires and thematic analysis of audio-recorded discussions and written feedback. RESULTS: Stakeholders’ responses indicated the scope and potential for clinical translation of 3D models. As tangible, three-dimensional artefacts, these can have a role in communicative processes. Their patient-specific quality is also important in relation to individual characteristics of CHD. Patients indicated that 3D models can help them visualise ‘what’s going on inside’. Parents agreed that models can spark curiosity in young people. Clinicians indicated that teaching might be the most relevant application. Nurses agreed that 3D models improved their learning experience during a CHD course. CONCLUSION: Engagement of different stakeholders to evaluate 3D printing technology for CHD identified the potential of the models for improving patient– doctor communication, patient empowerment and training. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A participatory approach could benefit the clinical evaluation and translation of 3D printing technology.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a participatory approach in the evaluation of 3D printed patient-specific models of congenital heart disease (CHD) with different stakeholders who would potentially benefit from the technology (patients, parents, clinicians and nurses). METHODS: Workshops, focus groups and teaching sessions were organised, targeting different stakeholders. Sessions involved displaying and discussing different 3D models of CHD. Model evaluation involved response counts from questionnaires and thematic analysis of audio-recorded discussions and written feedback. RESULTS: Stakeholders’ responses indicated the scope and potential for clinical translation of 3D models. As tangible, three-dimensional artefacts, these can have a role in communicative processes. Their patient-specific quality is also important in relation to individual characteristics of CHD. Patients indicated that 3D models can help them visualise ‘what’s going on inside’. Parents agreed that models can spark curiosity in young people. Clinicians indicated that teaching might be the most relevant application. Nurses agreed that 3D models improved their learning experience during a CHD course. CONCLUSION: Engagement of different stakeholders to evaluate 3D printing technology for CHD identified the potential of the models for improving patient– doctor communication, patient empowerment and training. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A participatory approach could benefit the clinical evaluation and translation of 3D printing technology.
Authors: Barbara S Brunner; Alisa Thierij; Andre Jakob; Anja Tengler; Maximilian Grab; Nikolaus Thierfelder; Christian J Leuner; Nikolaus A Haas; Carina Hopfner Journal: GMS J Med Educ Date: 2022-04-14
Authors: Ivan Lau; Yin How Wong; Chai Hong Yeong; Yang Faridah Abdul Aziz; Nor Ashikin Md Sari; Shahrul Amry Hashim; Zhonghua Sun Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2019-01
Authors: Giovanni Biglino; Sarah Moharem-Elgamal; Matthew Lee; Robert Tulloh; Massimo Caputo Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 3.569
Authors: Marcos Aurélio Barboza de Oliveira; Carlos Alberto Dos Santos; Antônio Carlos Brandi; Paulo Henrique Husseini Botelho; Domingo Marcolino Braile Journal: Braz J Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2020-08-01