> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://med-techinsights.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Designing drug delivery tech that truly serves patients - URL: https://med-techinsights.com/designing-drug-delivery-tech-that-truly-serves-patients/ - Published: 2025-08-04T10:38:36.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T03:26:54.000Z - Description: Andy Pidgeon, Head of Usability at 42 Technology argues too many devices are designed for mythical users. We need to innovate for people, not for platforms. Smart auto-injectors, wearable patches, Bluetooth apps, voice prompts, cloud dashboards, even AI nudges. More technologies than ever are being - Author: Oliver Johnson - Tags: Insights, Medical Device Manufacturing ***Andy Pidgeon, Head of Usability at*** [***42 Technology***](https://42t.com/?ref=med-techinsights.com) ***argues too many devices are designed for mythical users. We need to innovate for people, not for platforms.*** Smart auto-injectors, wearable patches, Bluetooth apps, voice prompts, cloud dashboards, even AI nudges. More technologies than ever are being thrown at drug delivery. But is this helping the person on the receiving end with a new injection therapy in their hand as much as we might think? Are we really focused on what they might need from their devices? After years of working on the design and usability of drug delivery devices, I have concluded that most patients do not want impressive solutions. They want clear, easy-to-use devices that ‘just work’, especially when they are already anxious about injecting themselves. This is not a rant against innovation. It is a plea to ensure our innovations actually help because, as designers and engineers, our responsibility is to build devices that support people in the real world. That starts with empathy. ###### **The myth of the “engaged” patient** I would contend that too many devices are designed for mythical users who are tech-savvy, calm, methodical, and enthusiastic about tracking their injections. They carefully follow app instructions and love getting reminders. Of course we test less capable respondents too, but in the back of our minds they are often labelled as outliers. In my experience, real patients can be frail, distracted or in some cases just scared. Their priorities are often on far more important things in their lives, like getting the kids to school on time. Believing they’ll all prioritise their therapy is a fantasy. I’ve heard patients tell me they skipped a dose not because they forgot, but because taking a “medication holiday” gave them back agency over their condition. No connected device will fix that with a flashing LED or a push notification. Designing for real people means accepting that some patients are nervous, others rushed, many just want the injection over with. For these users, simplicity is not a nice extra. It is the very thing that makes the treatment doable. ###### **When smart becomes a burden** Of course technology can help, especially where it simplifies complex tasks, and there is some evidence that well-designed connected injectors can support adherence too. For example, patients with multiple sclerosis using advanced auto-injectors paired with apps have shown over 90 percent adherence. But those results often come from short-term studies with lots of support, whereas in real-life I suspect adherence drops off. Take Bluetooth for example. It promises seamless data transfer but device pairing can be fiddly and dependent on unpredictable 3rd party hardware. Even scanning a QR code becomes a chore, and no one wants tech getting in the way. Same goes for AI. It could personalise reminders, adjust timings, even suggest better techniques but it must be optional and understandable. We are quickly moving from AI support to AI intervention. But if it becomes a black box that’s too clever for users to understand, how will we cope? If the algorithm tells someone to delay their injection with no clear reason, trust is lost. Patients want control, not a digital boss or mysterious voice telling them what to do. ###### **Focus on the real problem** When technology shines, it is usually because it solves a genuine, meaningful problem. Take wearable injectors. These devices infuse larger volumes of viscous drugs through a patch-like device, instead of cramming 3 mL or more into a single painful jab. This helps patients avoid regular clinic visits and makes a tough treatment more bearable. Similarly, platform devices offer something invaluable for pharma companies. Rather than developing a new injector for every drug, they can use proven platforms to accommodate different syringe sizes and fill volumes. This saves time, reduces cost, and improves reliability. But the flip-side is less specificity for particular patient groups or indications. Some platforms offer optional features like connectivity or temperature sensing. However optional is key here, tech should only be added when it benefits the user. Now consider skin sensors that detect whether an auto-injector is firmly against the skin to help prevent accidental misfires. The same goal can often be achieved with less tech, simpler mechanics and clearer instructions. If a complex sensor system addresses only a rare edge case, we need to ask whether the added complexity is worth it. Skin sensors can help prove adherence to remote monitors, but that offers little benefit to the patient. Also, every added feature is a potential point of failure so each must earn its place. ###### **Empathy as a design tool** Designing with empathy means asking some hard questions. What is the user trying to achieve? Where are they likely to struggle? What makes them feel confident or afraid? We know many patients create rituals around injecting and have to steel themselves to do it. In that moment, they want clarity where one big button is better than a dozen choices. This is why simplicity is not the opposite of innovation, it is the highest form of it. A great device hides its complexity. It reduces steps, removes decisions, offers reassurance at the right moment. The best devices can be used by someone with shaking hands and no manual, because this design serves the user. ###### **Choose what to leave out** The hardest part of design is restraint. It is easy to add features but hard to remove them. Ask yourself: does this feature make life easier or more confusing for the patient? Can it be optional or removed entirely? We need to be honest with ourselves. If most patients avoid the fancy version when given a simpler option, it means we may have solved the wrong problem. ###### **The real measure of success** In the end, our job is not to invent clever drug delivery devices but to help people take their medicine safely, confidently and without hesitation. If a smart injector helps a patient stick to their therapy without stress, this is real progress. If it complicates their routine or leaves them feeling confused or watched, it has failed. I would argue we shouldn’t be building devices for the sake of features. The smartest device is not the one with the most features. It is the one that knows when to stay out of the way.