Design Talk with Victoria Juretko

Designer of the PEA speculum – a gentle revo­lu­tion in gyne­co­log­ical exam­i­na­tion.

What was the starting point for the devel­op­ment of PEA?

During my master’s studies, I had the oppor­tu­nity to freely choose a final project, and it was impor­tant to me to try some­thing I hadn’t done before. That’s how I ended up in medical tech­nology. I arrived at the speculum rela­tively quickly because I myself had more nega­tive than posi­tive expe­ri­ences with it, and the instru­ment always played a major role in that. It was orig­i­nally meant to be just a one-semester project, but I quickly realised that the topic was too impor­tant to simply leave it in my port­folio after­wards. That’s why I decided to dedi­cate my entire master’s degree to the speculum.

 

How did you approach the design of such a sensi­tive medical instru­ment?

I first consid­ered what aspects had so far been neglected in the design of a speculum and then delib­er­ately went in the oppo­site direc­tion. It was impor­tant to me to look for areas where comfort is taken at least as seri­ously as func­tion­ality. Early on, through conver­sa­tions and surveys, I realised that I was not alone in wanting more comfort. In addi­tion to the form, I read many studies and engaged with gender studies and polit­ical debates around the female body. The idea of empow­er­ment over one’s own body through control­ling the inser­tion emerged from this research and not only repre­sents a genuinely more pleasant expe­ri­ence for the patient, but is also a strong polit­ical state­ment. We are reclaiming control over our own bodies.

 

What role did empathy play in the design process?

Empathy played a partic­u­larly impor­tant role here. It arises espe­cially when you have your­self been in the same or a similar situ­a­tion. Looking at the origins of the speculum, which were socially condi­tioned and exclu­sively male-domi­nated, it quickly becomes clear why aspects such as comfort or emotional safety were not prior­i­ties at the time. This is precisely why I wanted to change that perspec­tive and make empathy the foun­da­tion of the design.

PEA is inserted by the patient herself – how does this change the exam­i­na­tion situ­a­tion?

Self-inser­tion changes not only the moment of the exam­i­na­tion itself, but also the way the entire situ­a­tion is approached. In order to use PEA, patients consciously engage with the process before­hand; they know what will happen and retain control. This removes much of the unpre­dictability that often makes exam­i­na­tions so uncom­fort­able and creates a very different sense of safety and self-deter­mi­na­tion.

 

How did doctors respond to the concept?

The feed­back was consis­tently posi­tive. Many told me that they had never really ques­tioned the existing instru­ments before, following the mindset of “If some­thing has worked for so long, it can’t be bad.” This is exactly where I see my role as a designer: to ask ques­tions, to look at things anew, and to initiate change where routines have quietly taken hold.

Which mate­rial and form consid­er­a­tions were deci­sive?

When it came to form and mate­rial, I was primarily inspired by sex toys. In that field, comfort and the possi­bility of self-inser­tion come first, and needs are consid­ered from the very begin­ning. I wanted to design some­thing that doesn’t feel intim­i­dating at first glance, but might even convey a sense of famil­iarity (at least if you’ve ever seen or used a sex toy, haha). Rounded forms were there­fore a must, and plastic is currently our mate­rial choice. Our goal, however, is to find a way to make the product more sustain­able in the long term.

 

PEA is a hybrid between single-use and reusable – why was that impor­tant?

For me, gyne­cology does not align with the single-use product mindset. Sustain­ability should be taken seri­ously precisely in areas concerned with new life. With the hybrid approach, we aim to make both options more acces­sible: if the patient does not wish to reuse the instru­ment, it can be disposed of. If she is inter­ested, she can take it with her and reuse it at the next exam­i­na­tion. This results in less waste and greater famil­iarity at the same time – a win for both sides.

 

What was the biggest hurdle you had to over­come in the devel­op­ment process?

From a design perspec­tive, it was defi­nitely adapting the form – the sexy design I had envi­sioned unfor­tu­nately does not align well with regu­la­tions.

 

How do you define good design in a medical context?

Good design in a medical context, to me, means thinking in a needs-oriented and inclu­sive way. In gyne­cology, the patient plays a central role and should absolutely be involved in the design process. But this also applies to other medical fields: fewer stereo­types, more diver­sity. Handles, instru­ments, and devices should be designed for all hand and body sizes and body types – not just male ones.

What do you wish would change in women’s health?

To be taken seri­ously with prob­lems, concerns, but also ideas.

 

Victoria Juretko is a grad­uate of the Master Studio Indus­trial Design at the Insti­tute Contem­po­rary Design Prac­tices (ICDP) at the Basel Academy of Art and Design FHNW.