Psychosocial Impact of Electronic Aids to Daily Living

Assistive Technology

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 123-131

  Jutai, Jeffrey ^a   Rigby, Patty ^a   Ryan, Steve ^a   Stickel, Shone ^a  

^a HOLLAND BLOORVIEW KIDS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Electronic aids to daily living; Muscular dystrophy; Outcome measures; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

FUNCTIONAL NEURAL STIMULATION; HANDICAPPED PERSONS; INDEPENDENT LIVING SYSTEMS; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY;

DEGENERATIVE NEUROMUSCULAR CONDITIONS; ELECTRONIC AIDS TO DAILY LIVING;

NEUROMUSCULAR REHABILITATION;

ADULT; ARTICLE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY; ELECTRONICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; QUALITY OF LIFE; SELF ESTEEM; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; WELLBEING;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ADULT; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; ELECTRONICS, MEDICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES; ONTARIO; QUALITY OF LIFE; SELF-HELP DEVICES;

EID: 0034442470     PISSN: 10400435     EISSN: 19493614     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2000.10132018     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Angelo, J., & Trefler, E. (1998). A survey of persons who use integrated control devices. Technology, 10, 77-83.
2. Bell, P., & Hinojosa, J. (1995). Perception of the impact of assistive devices on daily life of three individuals with quad-v\p\eg\a. Assistive Technology, 7, 87-94.
3. Borenstein, M. (1997). Hypothesis testing and effect size estimation in clinical trials. Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, 78, 5-16.
4. Borenstein, M., Rothstein, H. & Cohen, J. (1997). Sample-Power. Chicago: SPSS.
5. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
6. Cowan, D., & Turner-Smith, A. (1999). The user's perspective on the provision of electronic assistive technology: Equipped for life? British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 2-9.
7. Cushman, L. A., & Scherer, M. J. (1996). Measuring the relationship of assistive technology use, functional status over time, and consumer-therapist perceptions of ATs.Assistive Technology, 8, 103-109.
8. Day, H., & Jutai, J. (1996). Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: The PIADS. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 9(2), 159-168.
9. Day, H., Jutai, J., Woolrich, W., & Strong, G. (in press). The stability of impact of assistive devices. Disability & Rehabilitation.
10. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2000). Proceedings of RESNA 2000, Orlando, FL (pp. 319-321). Arlington, VA: Resna Press.
11. Gryfe, P., & Jutai, J. (1998). Assistive technologies: Clients’ perceptions of impact on quality of life. Rehab & Community Care Management, 7, 26-30.
12. Gryfe, P., & Jutai, J. (1999, November). Assistive technology and quality of life for clients with ALS/MND. Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium on ALS/MND, Vancouver, Canada.
13. Gryfe, P., & Jutai, J. (2000, September). PIADS: Issues relating to research and practice. Paper presented at the Canadian Seating and Mobility Conference, Toronto.
14. Guyatt, G., Walter, S. D., & Norman, G. R. (1987). Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 171-178.
15. Harmer, J., & Bakheit, A. (1999). Benefits of ECS as perceived by disabled users and their carers. British Journal of Oc-cupational Therapy, 62, 394-398.
16. Jutai, J. (1999). Quality of life impact of assistive technology. Rehabilitation Engineering, 14, 2-7.
17. Jutai, J., & Gryfe, P. (1998). Impacts of assistive technology on clients with ALS. Proceedings of RESNA 1998, Minneapolis, (pp. 54-65). Arlington, VA: RESNA Press.
18. Jutai, J., Ladak, N., Schuller, R., Naumann, S., & Wright, V. (1996). Outcomes measurement of assistive technologies: An institutional perspective. Assistive Technology; 8(2), 110- 120.
19. Kerrigan, A. J. (1997). The psychosocial impact of rehabilita-tion technology. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; State of the Art Reviews, 11, 239-252.
20. Lange, M. (1998). Environmental controls and ADL. OT Practice, September, 49-50.
21. Lange, ML (1999). Electronic aids to daily living. Rehab Report, October, 24-27.
22. Murphy, J., Markova, I., Collins, S., & Moodie, E. (1996). AAC systems: Obstacles to effective use. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 31, 31-44.
23. National Advisory Council on Aging. (1989). Understanding seniors' independence. Report 1: The barriers and suggestions for action. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada.
24. Phillips, B., & Zhao, H. (1993). Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology, 5, 35-45.
25. Platts, R. G. S., & Fraser, M. H. (1993). Assistive technology in the rehabilitation of patients with high spinal-cord lesions. Paraplegia, 31, 280-287.
26. Renwick, R., & Brown, I. (1996). The Centre for Health Promotion’s conceptual approach to quality of life. In R. Renwick, I. Brown, & M. Nagler (Eds.), Quality of life in health promotion and rehabilitation: Conceptual approaches, issues, and applications (pp. 75-86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Renwick, R., Brown, I., & Raphael, D. (1994). Quality of life: Linking a conceptual approach to service provision. Journal of Developmental Disabilitiesf 3, 32-44.
28. Rigby, P., Renzoni, A. M., Ryan, S., Jutai, J., & Stickel, S. (2000, May). Exploring the impact of electronic aids for daily living upon persons with neuromuscular conditions. Paper presented at the Tri-Joint Congress 2000 (The Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiolo-gists, The Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, and The Canadian Physiotherapy Association), Toronto.
29. Scherer, M. J. (1996). Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disability & Rehabilitation, 18, 439^448.
30. Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation. (1996). Guid-e for the Uniform Data. Set for Medical Rehabilitation (including the FIMm Instrument), Version 5.0. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo.