Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes

American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 84, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 294-302

  Jutai, Jeffrey W ^a   Fuhrer, Marcus J ^b   Demers, Louise ^c   Scherer, Marcia J ^d   DeRuyter, Frank ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^d Institute for Matching Person and Technology   (United States)

^e DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Assistive Device; Assistive Technology; Outcome Measure; Taxonomy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST; DEVICE; ECONOMIC ASPECT; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; LANGUAGE; ORTHOPEDIC EQUIPMENT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; SOCIAL ASPECT; TAXONOMY; TECHNOLOGY; WELLBEING;

DISABLED PERSONS; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); SELF-HELP DEVICES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 15244345822     PISSN: 08949115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.PHM.0000157313.88732.DC     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Optical devices for adults with low vision: A systematic review of published studies of effectiveness. VA Technology Assessment Program: Office of Patient Care Services. Available at: http://www.va.gov/vatap/pubs/lowvision.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2005
2. Gitlin LN: Assistive technology in the home and community for older people: Psychological and social considerations, in Scherer MJ (ed): Assistive Technology: Matching Device and Consumer for Successful Rehabilitation. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, 2002, pp 109-122
3. Fuhrer M, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, et al: A framework for the conceptual modeling of assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:1243-51
4. De Jong G, Horn SD, Gassaway JA, et al: Toward a taxonomy of rehabilitation interventions: Using an inductive approach to examine the "black box" of rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:678-86
5. Hoenig H, Sloane R, Horner RD, et al: A taxonomy for classification of stroke rehabilitation services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81:853-62
6. Stineman MG: Defining the population, treatments, and outcomes of interest: Reconciling the rules of biology with meaningfulness. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:147-59
7. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2001
8. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Available at: http://www.m-w.com
9. Bailey KD: Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques, in: Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-102. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1994
10. Abledata: Your Source for Assistive Technology Information. Available at: http://www.Abledata.com. Accessed January 26, 2005
11. Bickenbach JE: ICIDH-2 and the role of environmental factors in the creation of disability, in Buhler C, Knops H (eds): Assistive Technology on the Threshold of the New Millennium. Amsterdam, IOS Press, 1999
12. Schulz R, O'Brien A, Czaja S, et al: Dementia caregiver intervention research: In search of clinical significance. Gerontologist 2002;42:589-602
13. Jutai J, Ladak N, Schuller R, et al: Outcomes measurement of assistive technologies: An institutional perspective. Assist Technol 1996;8:110-20
14. DeRuyter F: The importance of outcomes measures for assistive technology service delivery systems. Technol Disabil 1997;6:89-104
15. Gray DB, Quatrano LA, Lieberman ML: Designing and Using Assistive Technology: The Human Perspective. New York, Paul Brookes, 1998
16. Jette AM, Haley SM, Kooyoomjian JT: Are the ICF activity and participation dimensions distinct? J Rehabil Med 2003;35:145-9
17. Day H, Jutai J, Boschen K, et al: User-determined evaluation of technological advances in assistive devices, in: Proceedings of the First North American Regional Conference on Rehabilitation International, 1993, pp 622-31
18. Jacobs P, Hailey D, Jones A: Economic evaluation for assistive technology policy decisions. J Disabil Policy Stud 2003;14:119-25
19. Harris F, Sprigle S: Cost analyses in assistive technology research. Assist Technol 2003;15:16-27
20. Andrich R, Ferrario M, Moi M: A model of cost-outcome analysis for assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil 1998;20:1-24
21. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programs, ed 2. Toronto, Oxford University Press, 1997
22. Schunk C: Outpatient outcomes. Rehabil Manage 1996 April/May:105-7
23. DeRuyter F: Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commitment? Assist Technol 1995;7:1-8
24. Galvin JC, Scherer MJ (eds): Evaluating, Selecting and Using Appropriate Assistive Technology. Gaithersburg, MD, Aspen, 1996
25. Smith RO: Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: Challenge and innovation. Assist Technol 1996;8:71-81
26. Green LW, Kreuter MW: Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Environmental Approach, ed 2. Toronto, Mayfield Publishing, 1991
27. Gabrel C, Jones A: The National Nursing Home Survey: 1997 summary. Vital Health Stat 2000;13:147
28. Kaye S, Kang T, LaPlante MP: Mobility Device Use in the United States: Disability Statistics Report (14). Washington, DC, US Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 2000
29. LaPlante MP, Hendershot GE, Moss AJ: Assistive Technology Devices and Home Accessibility Features: Prevalence, Payment, Need and Trends. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, 217. Hyattsville, MD, National Center for Health Statistics, 1992
30. Riemer-Reiss ML, Wacher RR: Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. J Rehabil 2000;66:44-50
31. Fuhrer MJ: Subjectifying quality of life as a medical rehabilitation outcome. Disabil Rehabil 2000;22:481-9
32. Diener E: Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am Psychol 2000;55:34-43
33. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B: Development of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 1996;8:3-13
34. Day H, Jutai JW: Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: The PIADS. Can J Rehabil 1996;9:159-68
35. Rossi PH: Program outcomes: Conceptual and measurement issues, in Mullen EJ, Magnabosco JL (eds): Outcome Measurement in the Human Services: Cross-Cutting Issues and Methods. Washington, DC, National Association of Social Workers Press, 1997
36. Samsa GP, Matchar DB: How strong is the relationship between functional status and quality of life among persons with stroke? J Rehabil Res Dev 2004;41:279-82
37. Hocking C: Function or feelings: Factors in abandonment of assistive devices. Technol Disabil 1999;11:3-11
38. Ueda S, Okawa Y: The subjective dimension of functioning and disability: What is it and what is it for? Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:596-601
39. Scherer MJ, Cushman LA: Predicting satisfaction with assistive technology for a sample of adults with new spinal cord injuries. Psychol Rep 2000;87:981-7
40. Flanagan JC: A research approach to improving our quality of life. Am Psychol 1978;33:138-47
41. Fuhrer M: Assistive technology outcomes research: Challenges met and yet unmet. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:528-35
42. Lenker JA, Paquet VL: A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol 2003;15:1-15
43. Galvin JC: Assistive technology: Federal policy and practice since 1982. Technol Disabil 1997;6:3-15