Wheelchair Seating Aids: How Satisfied Are Consumers?

Assistive Technology

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 43-53

  Weiss Lambrou, Rhoda ^a   Tremblay, Camille ^a   LeBlanc, Richard ^a   Lacoste, Michèle ^a   Dansereau, Jean ^a  

^a Université Laval   (Canada)

Author keywords

Consumer criteria; QUEST; Satisfaction; Seating aids; Wheelchairs

Indexed keywords

SEATING FOR DISABLED PERSONS; STATISTICAL METHODS;

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY; WHEELCHAIR SEATING AIDS;

WHEELCHAIRS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; CANADA; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONSUMER; FEMALE; HOME CARE; HUMAN; MALE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; RATING SCALE; SEX DIFFERENCE; TECHNOLOGY; WHEELCHAIR;

EID: 0033459498     PISSN: 10400435     EISSN: 19493614     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10400435.1999.10131984     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Andrich, R., Ferrario, M., & Moi, M. (1997). Cost-o utcomes analysis in the provision of Assistive technology to indivi dual cases. In G. Anagionakis, C. Buhl er, &M. Soede (Eds.), Adoancement of assistiue techno logy (pp. 386-390). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: lOS.
2. Batavia, A. J., & Hammer, G. S. (1990). Toward the development of consumer-based crite ria for the eva luation of assistive devices. Journal of Rehabil itation Research and Deuelopm ent, 7, 425-436.
3. Can adia n Burden of Illness Study Group. (1998). Burden of ill ness of multiple sclerosis: Part 2: Quality of life. Canadian Journal ofNeurologic Sci ences, 25, 31-38.
4. Day, H., & Jutai, J. (1996). Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Canadian Journal of Rehab ilitation, 9(2), 159-168.
5. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (1996). Development of the Quebec Usereval uation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assis tiue technology, 8, 3-13.
6. DeRuyter, F. (1995). Evalua ting outcomes in as sistive technology: Do we un derstand the commitment? Assistiue Technology, 7, 3-16.
7. Keith, R. L. (1998). Patient satisfaction and rehabilitation services. Archi ues of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 1122-1128.
8. Lane, J. P., Usiak, D. J., & Moffatt, A. (1996). Consumer crite ria for assistive devices: Operationali zing generic criteria for specific ABLEDATA categories. In Proceedings of the 19th Annua l Conference on Rehabilitation technology (pp. 146-148). Salt Lake City, UT: RESNA Press.
9. Lorentsen, O. (1997). Goal attainment-A tool to assess outcomes of assistive devices. In G. Anogia na kis, C. Buhler, & M. Soede (Eds.), Aduancement of assis ti ue technology (pp. 102-104). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: lOS.
10. Mann, W. C., Ottenbacher, K. J., Hurren, D., & Tomita, M. (1995). Relationsh ip of severity of physica l disability to pain, functi ona l status, and assistive device use of home-based elderly clients. Journal of Home Health Care Practice, 8(1), 75-84.
11. Nochajski, S.M., Tomita, M. R., & Mann, W. C. (1996).The use and satisfaction with assistive devices by older persons with cognitive impairments: A pilot inte rvention study. Topics in Geriatric Rehab ilitation, 12(2),40-53.
12. Pa rker, M. G., & Thorslund, M. (1991). The use of technical aids among community based elderly. American Journal of Occupat ional Therapy, 45, 712-718.
13. Phillips, B., & Zhao, H. (1993). Predictors of assistive technology abandonment.Assistive Technology, 5, 36-45. Reha bilitation Engineerin g and Assistive technology Society of North America. (1998). RESNA resource g uide for assisti oe technology outcomes. Arlington, VA: RESNA Press.
14. Scherer, M. J. (1993). Li ving in the state of stuck: How technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. Cambridge, MA: Brooklin e Books.
15. Scherer, M. J. (1994). Matching people with technology. Rehabil it at ion Man agement, 7(2), 128-130.
16. Scherer, M., & McKee, B. (1989). But will the as sistive tech nology device be used? In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Rehabilitation Engineering Society of North America (pp, 48-49).Washington, DC: RESNA Press.
17. Scherer, M. J., & Vitaliti, L. T. (1997). A functiona l approach to technological factors and their assessment in rehabilitation. In S. S. Dittmar & G. E. Gresham (Eds.), Functional ass essm ent and outcome measures for the rehabilit ation health professional (pp. 69-80). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. HOW SATISFIED ARE CONSUMERS?
18. Smith, R O. (1996). Measuring the outcomes of ass istive technology: Cha llenge and innovation. Assistive Technology, 8, 71-81.
19. Trachtman, L. (1994). Outcome measures: Are we ready to answer the tough question s? Assistive Technology, 6, 91-92.
20. Tremblay, C. (1998). Les aides techniques ala posture: Eval uation de la satis faction des utilisa teurs [Seat ing aids: Evaluation of user sat is faction]. Unpublished master 's thesis, Sciences biomedicales (readapt ation), Montreal: Uni ver site de Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
21. Verbrugge, L. M., & J ette, A. M. (1994). The disablement process. Social Science Medicine, 38, 1-14.
22. Wessels, R D., de Witte, L. P., Weiss-Larnbrou, R, Demer s, L., & Wijihu izen, G. (1998). A Dutch version of QUEST (DQUEST) applied as a rout ine follow-up within the se rvice delivery process. In 1. Placencia Porrero & E. Ballabio (Eds.), Improving the qual ity of life for the European citizen (pp. 420-424).Washington, DC: lOS.
23. Vuori, H. (1991). Pati ent sa tisfaction -Does it matter?Qual ity As surance in Health Care, 3, 183-189.
24. Zastowny, T. R, Roghmann, K. L., & CafTerata, G. L. (1989). Pa tient satisfaction and the use of hea lth services -Explorat ions in causality. Medical Care, 2 7, 705-723