Predictors of Assistive Technology Abandonment

Assistive Technology

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 1993, Pages 36-45

  Phillips, Betsy ^a   Zhao, Hongxin ^b,c  

^a NATIONAL REHABILITATION HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b National Rehabilitation Hospital Research Center   (United States)

^c FBA ^*  (Singapore)

Author keywords

Abandonment; Assistive technology; Consumer satisfaction

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DISABLED PERSON; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HUMAN; ILLNESS BEHAVIOR; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF HELP;

ADULT; AGED; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF-HELP DEVICES; SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, NON-P.H.S.; TREATMENT REFUSAL;

EID: 0027359079     PISSN: 10400435     EISSN: 19493614     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10400435.1993.10132205     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Batavia AJ, Hammer G. Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. J Rehabil Res Dev 1990;27:425-36.
2. Bynum HS, Rogers JC. The use and effectiveness of assistive devices possessed by patients seen in home care. Occup Ther J Res 1987;7:181-91.
3. Garber SL, Gregorio TL. Upper extremity assistive devices: assessment of use by spinal cord-injured patients with quad- riplegia. Am J Occup Ther 1990;44:126-31.
4. Kaplan LI, Grynbaum BB, Rusk HA, Anastasia T, Gassier S. Reappraisal of braces and other mechanical aids in pa tients with spinal cord dysfunction: results of follow-up study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1966;47:393-405.
5. LeBlanc MA. Rehabilitation technology linkages. In: Technology for independent living. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1982:59-61.
6. Lifchez R, Leiser L, Pendleton HM, Davis C. Technology for the living environment. In: Technology for independent living 2. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1983:83-92.
7. Scherer MJ, McKee BG. But will the assistive technology be used? In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual RESNA Conference. Washington, DC: RESNA, 1989:356-357.
8. Vash CL. Psychological aspects of rehabilitation engineering. In: Technology for independent living 2. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1983:48-59.
9. Zola IK. Involving the consumer in the rehabilitation process: easier said than done. In: Technology for independent living. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1982:112-121.
10. Wright BA. Physical disability: a psychosocial approach. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.
11. Scherer MJ. Assistive device utilization and quality-of-life in adults with spinal cord injuries or cerebral palsy. J Appl Rehabil Courts 1987;19:21-30.
12. Nevins B. Gaps in the models. In: Technology for independent living. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1982:107-111.
13. Brooks NA. Users’ perceptions of assistive devices. In: Rehabilitation engineering. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1990:495-512.
14. Ward C. Design for all: consumer needs assessment project-year 2. Washington, DC: Electronic Industries Foundation Rehabilitation Engineering Center, 1990.
15. Brooks NA, Hoyer EA. Consumer evaluation of assistive devices. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual RESNA Conference. Washington, DC: RESNA, 1989:358-359.
16. Haworth RJ. Use of aids during the first three months after total hip replacement. Br J Rheumatol 1983;22:29-35.
17. Seeger MS, Fisher LA. Adaptive equipment used in the rehabilitation of hip arthroplasty patients. Am J Occup Ther 1982;36:503-8.
18. Chamberlain MA. Aids and appliances in the home-a critical survey of bath aids and their use. Int Rehab Med 1979; 1:204-7.
19. Haworth RJ, Hopkins J. Use of aids following total hip replacement. Br J Occup Ther 1980;Dec:398-400.
20. Hollings EM, Haworth RJ. Supply and use of aids and appliances. Br J Occup Ther 1978;Oct:336-339.
21. Parker M, Thorslund M. The use of technical aids among community-based elderly. Am J Occup Ther 1991;45:712-718.
22. McGrath PJ, Goodman TJ, Cunningham JC, MacDonald B, Nichols TA, Unruh A. Assistive devices: utilization by children. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1985;66:430-432.
23. Caudrey DJ, Seeger BR. Rehabilitation engineering service evaluation: a follow-up survey of device effectiveness and patient acceptance. Rehabil Lit 1983;44:80-84.
24. Coghlan JK, Robinson CE, Newmarch B, Jackson G. Lower extremity bracing in paraplegia: follow-up study. Paraplegia 1980;18:25-32.
25. Corthell DW. Thirteenth institute on rehabilitation issues: rehabilitation technologies. Menomonie, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Stout, Research and Training Center, 1986.
26. Gitlin L, Levine R. Prescribing adaptive devices to the elderly: principles for treatment in the home. Int J Tech Aging 1992;5:107-120.
27. Grady A, Kovach T, Lange M, Shannon L. Promoting choice in selection of assistive technology devices. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Technology and Persons with Disabilitiess. Los Angeles: California State University, Northridge, 1991:315-22.
28. Rogers J, Holm M. Assistive technology device use in patients with rheumatic disease: a literature review. Am -J Occup Ther 1992;46:120-7.
29. Mortola PJ, Kohn J, LeBlanc M. Follow-up and videotape in rehabilitation technology. In: Proceedings of 13th Annual RESNA Conference. Washington, DC: 1990:29-30.
30. Enders A. Rehabilitation and technology: self-help approaches to technology: an independent living (IL) model for rehabilitation. Int J Tech Aging 1991;4:141-152.
31. United Cerebral Palsy. Summary of recommendations for reform in federal programs. In: Access to the financing of assistive technology: report for the National Council on Disability. Washington, DC: United Cerebral Palsy, 1992.