Starting from the needs: what are the appropriate sources to co-create innovative solutions for persons with disabilities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Technical solutions could facilitate activities and participation in individuals with disabilities. For the development of solutions, hackathons are a method of interdisciplinary collaboration. For hackathon, the definition of pain points that require solutions is crucial. We aimed to determine engineers' preferences and expectations regarding pain point qualities. METHODS: We used a collaborative approach involving individuals with disability, families, and healthcare professionals to determine pain points for use by engineering students during a disability Hackathon. A pain point bank was built using 3 upstream sources: a survey (350 responses, 20 pain points selected), interviews (8 children, 13 pain points), and a multidisciplinary workshop based on design thinking methods (45 people, 32 pain points). A fourth source was 20 adults with disabilities present during the Hackathon. Engineering students rated pain point qualities from each source in a questionnaire that included closed questions relating to predefined criteria: achievability, specificity, relevance and attractiveness and open questions to collect non-predefined quality criteria. RESULTS: Pain points from the workshop were most frequently used (48%); followed by on-site discussions with mentors (43%), the survey (38%), and interviews (31%). On-site discussions received the highest quality ratings followed by the workshop, survey, and interviews. Three quality criteria emerged from the responses to open questions: "representative", "empathy", and "real-need". CONCLUSIONS: To be actionable by engineers, pain points must relate to real needs, be achievable, specific, relevant and attractive but also representative and arouse empathy. We devised a checklist of qualities along with a toolbox of methods to achieve each. Implications For RehabilitationThe first step of the development of technical solutions for children and individuals with disabilities is the identification of their needs and their adequate formulation to be submitted to technical solutions providers.Daily life needs of individuals with disability were gathered for an engineering hackathon and proposed as pain points to 400 engineering students.To facilitate the development of solutions by engineers, pain points must relate to real needs, be specific, relevant, achievable and attractive; be representative and arouse empathy; a toolbox of needs collection methods is proposed to achieve each of those qualities.Discussions with individuals with disability and health professionals should be provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".