Use and cost of assistive technology the first year after stroke: A randomized controlled trial

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 520-527

  Gosman Hedström, Gunilla ^a   Claesson, Lisbeth ^a   Blomstrand, Christian ^a   Fagerberg, Björn ^a   Lundgren Lindquist, Birgitta ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Aged; Assistive technology; Random allocation; Stroke unit

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; GENERAL MEDICAL AIDS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HOUSING; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; ORTHOSIS; PRESCRIPTION; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STROKE;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; ARCHITECTURAL ACCESSIBILITY; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COHORT STUDIES; HOSPITAL COSTS; HOSPITAL UNITS; HOSPITALS, UNIVERSITY; HOUSING; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENTS' ROOMS; PRESCRIPTIONS, NON-DRUG; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SELF-HELP DEVICES; SWEDEN;

EID: 0036623173     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Altman D. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
2. Anderson C, Rubenach S, Ni Mhurchu C, et al. Home or hospital for stroke rehabilitation? Results of a randomized controlled trial, I: Health outcomes at 6 months. Stroke. 2000;31:1024-1031.
3. Bland M. An introduction to medical statistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
4. Claesson L, Gosman-Hedstrom G, Johannesson M, Fagerberg B, Blomstrand C. Resource utilization and costs of stroke unit care integrated in a care continuum: A 1-year controlled, prospective, randomized study in elderly patients - The Goteborg 70+ Stroke Study. Stroke. 2000;31:2569-2577.
5. Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration. Collaborative systematic review of the randomised trials of organised in-patient (stroke-unit) care after stroke. BMJ. 1997;314:1151-1159.
6. Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration. How do stroke unit improve patients outcomes? A collaborative systematic review of randomized trials. Stroke. 1997;28:2139-2144.
7. Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration. Organized inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke (Cochrane review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2. Oxford: Update Software; 2001.
8. Cushman LA, Scherer MJ. Measuring the relationship of assistive technology use, functional status over time and consumer-therapist perceptions of ATs. Assistive Technology. 1996;8:103-109.
9. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: University Press; 1997.
10. Fagerberg B, Claesson L, Gosman-Hedstrom G, Blomstrand C. Effect of acute stroke unit care integrated with care continuum versus conventional treatment: A randomized 1-year study of elderly patients - The Göteborg 70+ Stroke Study, Stroke. 2000;31:2578-2584.
11. Gillén G, Burkhardt A. Stroke rehabilitation: A function-based approach. St. Louis: Mosby; 1998.
12. Gosman-Hedstrom G, Sonn U, Aniansson A. Different kinds of services and informal support in the daily life activities in a community-based elderly population. Aging. 1995;7:371-378.
13. Harrington TL, Harrington MK. Gerontechnology: Why and How? Maastricht: Shaker Publishing; 2000.
14. Hass U. Assessment of assistive technology: Outcomes, costs and quality (dissertation). Linköping: Linköpings University; 1996.
15. Johannesson M. Theory and methods of economic evaluation of health care. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1996.
16. Kohlmeyer K. Assistive and adaptive equipment. In: Hopkins HL, Smith HD, eds. Willard and Spackman's Occupational Therapy. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1993:316-320.
17. Langhorne P, Dennis M. Stroke units: An evidence based approach. London: BMJ Books; 1998.
18. Lofgren B, Nyberg L, Mattsson M, Gustavson Y. Three years after in-patient stroke rehabilitation: A follow-up study. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1999;9:163-170.
19. Mann WC, Hurren D, Tomita M. Comparison of assistive device use and needs of home-based older persons with different impairments. Am J Occup Ther. 1993;47:980-987.
20. Parker MG, Thorslund M. The use of technical aids among community-based elderly. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45:712-718.
21. Socialstyrelsen (National Board of Health and Welfare). Nationella riktlinjer för strokesjukvård (National policies concerning stroke management). Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen; 2000.
22. Sonn U, Grimby G. Assistive devices in an elderly population studied at 70 and 76 years of age. Disabil Rehabil. 1994;16:85-92.
23. Térent A, Marké LA, Asplund K, et al. Costs of stroke in Sweden: A national perspective. Stroke. 1994;25:2363-2369.
24. Watts JH, Erickson AE, Houde L, Wilson E, Maynard M. Assistive device use among the elderly: A national data-based study. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics. 1996;14:1-18.
25. Widén Holmqvist L, von Koch L, de Pedro-Cuesta J. Use of healthcare, impact on family caregivers and patient satisfaction of rehabilitation at home after stroke in southwest Stockholm. Scand J Rehabil Med. 2000;32:173-179.