This project was such a blast! I’m really glad I got the chance to work on something like this—especially because it ties so closely into point-of-care design, which is a huge focus of mine during my master’s research. Our goal was clear from the start: simplify the pelvic frame model and reduce complexity, especially in the cervix holder. Honestly, that giant screw from the previous setup? Not a fan. We ditched it entirely.
We wanted something that kept the useful features—like the numbered plates for orientation—but removed anything overly complicated. Inspired by those over-the-door towel racks (yes, really), we developed a cervix holder that hooks onto the pelvic frame in a similar way. Our first prototype looked like a little bunny (adorable and accidental), and while it was sleek, we were relying on Velcro to hold the cervix in place.
Eventually, we pivoted to a peg-style design. This reduced the number of materials required and simplified placement, using the natural slot in the cervix model. There was also a point where I realized the bunny era of the hook breaks more easily than it should, so I increased the thickness of the hook so it was less likely to break. We cleaned up the dimensions to center everything properly, and curved out the edges to keep it smooth and user-friendly.
As for the pelvic frame—this part was its own adventure. We wanted to maintain the original dimensions but reduce how many screws were needed. Cue the finger joints! These allowed the wood pieces to slot together cleanly with fewer fasteners. Our first attempt didn’t cut all the way through (thanks to some bad settings and alignment issues), but once we fixed that, it was smooth sailing… mostly.
We realized early on that 3D-printed joints alone weren’t stable enough—things were just too floppy. So we added more screw holes, scrapped the L-brackets that weren’t doing much, and instead built small “walls” into the corners of the 3D printed joints to the panels to keep them upright and secure. We also redesigned the finger joints for a tighter, more reliable fit with a smaller kerf. We also wanted to use custom joints for the base panels since we didn’t think kerf alone would keep everything secure.
One sneaky problem: the base still had a bit of wiggle. The fix? A simple rubber band. Adding one to the baseboard helped create friction, keeping the entire setup steady without adding complexity. Rubber stoppers were an option, but we wanted something universally available—and let’s be honest, who doesn’t have a rubber band lying around?
To make assembly more intuitive, we added symbols and numbers to both the 3D parts and wooden panels. This way, even someone who’s never seen the model before can figure out how it goes together without second-guessing. We centered the numbers, labeled everything clearly, and ensured the assembly flow was obvious just from the visual cues.
Our final steps involved some good ol’ fashioned cleanup: sanding rough edges, wiping off laser-burned panels (my hands still smell like charred wood), and making everything nice and polished.
In the end, I’m super happy with how it all turned out. It’s simple, sleek, intuitive—and honestly, way more user-friendly. Hopefully it can make cancer screening training more accessible and easier to set up for others in the future.
Cost Analysis Summary:
| Cost Type | Cost | Price | Source | Quantity | Total |
| Materials | ¼” MDF Laser Cutting Wood | $64/16 pieces | link | 1 | $64 |
| Screws | $7.97/100 pieces | link | 1 | $7.97 | |
| Washers | $12.76/25 pieces | link | 1 | $12.76 | |
| ABS material | $19.99/1kg | link | 49g | $0.98 | |
| Sand Paper | $7.09 | link | 1 | $7.09 | |
| Labor | Laser cutting operator | $19/hr | link | 6 | $114 |
| Prototyping Engineer (You!) | $18/hr | link | 6 | $108 | |
| Overhead | Facility Cost (Machine Time) | $25/hr | link | 3 | $75 |
| Design | Engineering and Development | $32/hr | link | 4 | $128 |
Total: $517.80
Our lab table:
