The right users, earlier.

For human factors and usability

We give you members who live with the condition to test instructions for use, packaging, training material and comprehension early, before your formative rounds. Two ways: a pilot, where members review the IFU or carton inside our platform and we report what they said and what you changed; or members per session, where we supply people into your own or your consultancy's sessions, screened to your criteria, and you keep your method and your records.

To be clear about what this is: our report is a design input, not a formative evaluation record under IEC 62366-1. Your user groups come from your use specification, not from condition prevalence, so we screen to the fields you name. Our member profiles hold condition, age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation and other conditions as standing fields. It doesn't yet hold dexterity, vision, device experience or caregiver status as standing fields; we screen for those on request and tell you the count before you pay. We're adding them to the profile survey, and because we go back to the same members again and again, coverage builds across our members over the months after a field goes in.

For product and user research

You send us the screener, or we write it with you. We invite members who fit your screener and they come into your tools: a prototype link, an unmoderated test, a survey, a moderated interview on your call software. When you run the session, the recording and the notes are yours. You pay per completed session, including the member's pay and a replacement for a no-show, not per invitation. Because members answer within hours to days, first sessions are usually within a week of your screener being agreed. Members can also use your app for a week or two and keep a video diary; you get the findings, never the recordings.

For clinical affairs

Put the clinical investigation plan, the participant information sheet and the PMCF survey in front of members who live with the condition before the investigation opens. The report shows who took part and what changed, for the clinical investigation plan and the PMCF evaluation report.

Devices at home

Where a device or a training version can safely be used at home, members can film themselves using it in a video diary, so we pick up the workarounds that never come up in a lab and report them to you. We never share the recordings; you get the findings. How it works in practice: you send training devices, packaging or leaflets to us, we send them to members by tracked post and collect them back the same way, and we agree in writing beforehand who is responsible for the device at each step. Members are told the device is for handling and review only, not treatment. If a member is hurt or complains, we tell you the same working day.

For evidence and regulatory

The report describes who took part, broken down by age, sex, ethnicity and deprivation, what they raised, what you changed and what you didn't, written for the user involvement and health inequalities questions in your NICE evidence standards submission and DTAC. It comes as a dated, version-numbered document you can cite. It's written for two places: the NICE evidence standards framework's design standards on acceptability to the people the technology is intended for and on health and care inequalities, and the usability and accessibility section of DTAC, which asks whether you engage users in developing the product, how, and whether you test usability with them.

Accessibility

We don't yet hold disability or assistive technology use as standing fields. We screen for them on request and tell you the count before you pay, and we're adding both to the profile survey.