skip to main content
10.1145/3572921.3572928acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesozchiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Open innovation voices and choices: case studies of designing interactive virtual reality experiences in Australian public hospitals

Published: 06 April 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Virtual reality (VR) can offer many advantages as an adjunct of care when end-user involvement and practical integration in clinical workflows are considered from the start. This paper describes open innovation approaches that can help the integration and sharing of knowledge between multiple stakeholder groups, creating a platform for meaningful engagement towards the design and integration of VR technology as a routine part of the patient care pathway. This paper presents two cases of VR design and use on a large Australian health precinct. Through the use of stakeholder interviews, this paper addresses the question: how can open innovation approaches facilitate meaningful stakeholder engagement for VR design in healthcare? Four portable principles are identified that summarise key learnings and may contribute to open innovation approaches for the design of VR for health services and human computer interaction practitioners engaging stakeholders at the ecosystem, health service, hospital department and patient level. Open innovation may also broaden the scope of Creative Connectivity beyond ideation and prototyping, by incorporating avenues for nontraditional approaches to dissemination.

References

[1]
A. Albers, L. Maul, N. Bursac, and R. Heismann, “Connected creativity - A human centered community platform for innovation impulses,” ICDC 2015 - Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Des. Creat., pp. 158–165, 2015.
[2]
A. Albers, L. Maul, R. Heismann, and N. Bursac, “Connected creativity – a human centered community innovation platform in the context of product generation engineering,” pp. 1–26, 2018.
[3]
H. Chesbrough, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business Press, 2003.
[4]
P. H. Jones, “Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems,” in Social Systems and Design, Springer, Tokyo, 2014, pp. 91–128.
[5]
R. Cox, M. Kendall, M. Molineux, E. Miller, and B. Tanner, “Refining a capability development framework for building successful consumer and staff partnerships in healthcare quality improvement: A coproduced eDelphi study,” Health Expectations. 2022.
[6]
O. Gassmann and E. Enkel, “Towards a Theory of Open Innovation: Three Core Process Archetypes,” R&D Manag. Conf. 2004 Lissabon, Jul. 2004, Accessed: Jun. 02, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/publications/274.
[7]
S. Wass and V. Vimarlund, “Healthcare in the age of open innovation - A literature review.,” Health Inf. Manag., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 121–133, Dec. 2016.
[8]
H. Chesbrough and A. Di Minin, “Open Social Innovation,” in New Frontiers in Open Innovation, H. Chesbroug, W. Vanhaverbeke, and J. West, Eds. Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 169–188.
[9]
T. O. Salge, T. Farchi, M. I. Barrett, and S. Dopson, “When does search openness really matter? A contingency study of health-care innovation projects,” J. Prod. Innov. Manag., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 659–676, Jul. 2013.
[10]
C. Dias and A. Escoval, “The open nature of innovation in the hospital sector: The role of external collaboration networks,” Heal. Policy Technol., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 181–186, Dec. 2012.
[11]
H. Chesbrough, “To recover faster from Covid-19, open up: Managerial implications from an open innovation perspective,” Ind. Mark. Manag., vol. 88, pp. 410–413, Jul. 2020.
[12]
M. F. Levin, P. L. Weiss, and E. A. Keshner, “Emergence of Virtual Reality as a Tool for Upper Limb Rehabilitation: Incorporation of Motor Control and Motor Learning Principles,” Phys. Ther., vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 415–425, Mar. 2015.
[13]
M. R. Desselle, R. A. Brown, A. R. James, M. J. Midwinter, S. K. Powell, and M. A. Woodruff, “Augmented and virtual reality in surgery,” Comput. Sci. Eng., 2020.
[14]
T. Zhan, Y.-H. Lee, and S.-T. Wu, “High-resolution additive light field near-eye display by switchable Pancharatnam–Berry phase lenses,” Opt. Express, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 4863–4872, 2018.
[15]
M. Tennant, J. McGillivray, G. J. Youssef, M. C. McCarthy, and T. J. Clark, “Feasibility, Acceptability, and Clinical Implementation of an Immersive Virtual Reality Intervention to Address Psychological Well-Being in Children and Adolescents With Cancer,” J. Pediatr. Oncol. Nurs., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 265–277, 2020.
[16]
H. G. Hoffman, “Feasibility of articulated arm mounted oculus rift virtual reality goggles for adjunctive pain control during occupational therapy in pediatric burn patients,” Cyberpsychology, Behav. Soc. Netw., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 397–401, Jun. 2014.
[17]
E. B.-N. Sanders and P. J. Stappers, “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design,” CoDesign, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 5–18, Mar. 2008.
[18]
T. Green, “Use and reporting of experience-based codesign studies in the healthcare setting: a systematic review,” BMJ Quality and Safety, vol. 29, no. 1. BMJ Publishing Group, pp. 64–76, Jan. 01, 2020.
[19]
NHS, “The experience based design approach - NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement,” 2009. [Online]. Available: www.institute.nhs.uk/catalogue.
[20]
M. E. Ward, “Using Co-Design to Develop a Collective Leadership Intervention for Healthcare Teams to Improve Safety Culture,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 1182, Jun. 2018.
[21]
G. Robert, J. Cornwell, L. Locock, A. Purushotham, G. Sturmey, and M. Gager, “Patients and staff as codesigners of healthcare services,” BMJ, vol. 350, p. 1DUMMUY, Feb. 2015.
[22]
R. Harrison, M. Chin, and E. NiShe, “What does co-design mean for Australia's diverse clinical workforce?,” Aust. Heal. Rev., vol. 46, pp. 60–61, 2022.
[23]
R. Cuthbert, S. Turkay, R. Brown, D. Johnson, R. Altizer Jr, and M. Desselle, “Tradies, technology and therapy: Towards designing gameful VR environments for burn rehabilitation,” in CHI PLAY ’20: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 2020, pp. 549–560.
[24]
M. R. Desselle, L. R. Holland, A. McKittrick, G. Kennedy, P. Yates, and J. Brown, “‘A Wanderer's Tale’: The development of a virtual reality application for pain and quality of life in Australian burns and oncology patients,” Palliat. Support. Care, pp. 1–7, Jun. 2022.
[25]
H. G. Hoffman, “Water-friendly virtual reality pain control during wound care,” J. Clin. Psychol., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 189–195, Feb. 2004.
[26]
H. G. Hoffman, “The analgesic effects of opioids and immersive virtual reality distraction: evidence from subjective and functional brain imaging assessments,” Anesth. Analg., vol. 105, no. 6, pp. 1776–1783, 2007.
[27]
P. Baxter and S. Jack, “Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers,” Qual. Rep., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 544–559, 2008.
[28]
D. Gioia, “A Systematic Methodology for Doing Qualitative Research,” J. Appl. Behav. Sci., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 20–29, Mar. 2021.
[29]
M. V Angrosino, “Recontextualizing Observation: Ethnography, Pedagogy, and the Prospects for a Progressive Political Agenda,” in The Sage handbook of qualitative research, N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincol, Ed. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2005, pp. 729–745.
[30]
F. T. Piller and J. West, “Firms, users, and innovation: An interactive model of coupled open innovation,” in New Frontiers in Open Innovation, H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, and J. West, Eds. Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 29–49.
[31]
H. Chesbrough and M. Bogers, “Explicating Open Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for Understanding Innovation,” in New Frontiers in Open Innovation., H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, and J. West, Eds. Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 3–28.
[32]
M. Bogers, “The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis,” Ind. Innov., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 8–40, Jan. 2017.
[33]
C. Brophy, “Designing an open innovation orchestrator: The case of Australia's advanced robotics for manufacturing (ARM) hub,” Cern IdeaSquare J. Exp. Innov., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 16–22, 2020.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Perspectives from Naive Participants and Experienced Social Science Researchers on Addressing Embodiment in a Virtual Cyberball TaskCompanion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing10.1145/3584931.3607014(189-194)Online publication date: 14-Oct-2023

Index Terms

  1. Open innovation voices and choices: case studies of designing interactive virtual reality experiences in Australian public hospitals
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    OzCHI '22: Proceedings of the 34th Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
    November 2022
    373 pages
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 06 April 2023

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. codesign
    2. healthcare
    3. open innovation
    4. virtual reality

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    OzCHI '22
    OzCHI '22: 34th Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
    November 29 - December 2, 2022
    ACT, Canberra, Australia

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 362 of 729 submissions, 50%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)38
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7
    Reflects downloads up to 13 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)Perspectives from Naive Participants and Experienced Social Science Researchers on Addressing Embodiment in a Virtual Cyberball TaskCompanion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing10.1145/3584931.3607014(189-194)Online publication date: 14-Oct-2023

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media