An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment

Multiple Sclerosis

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 88-93

  Verza, R ^a   Lopes Carvalho, M L ^b   Battaglia, M A ^c   Messmer Uccelli, Michele ^b  

^a Italian Multiple Sclerosis Society Rehabilation Centre of Padua   (Italy)

^b Italian Multiple Sclerosis Society   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SIENA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Abandonment; Assistive technology; Mobility aids; Multiple sclerosis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY; BRACE; CHAIR; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; EQUIPMENT; FEMALE; FLOTATION BED; HUMAN; ITALY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST; PHYSICIAN; PHYSIOTHERAPIST; POWERED WHEELCHAIR; PSYCHOLOGIST; REHABILITATION CENTER; TREATMENT REFUSAL; WALKING AID;

COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DISABLED PERSONS; HUMANS; ITALY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; SELF-HELP DEVICES; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 31644447532     PISSN: 13524585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/1352458506ms1233oa     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Scherer MJ, Lane JP. Assessing consumer profiles of "ideal" assistive technologies in ten categories: an integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. Disabil Rehabil 1997; 19: 528-35.
2. Coyle PK, Halper J. Meeting the challenge of progressive multiple sclerosis. Demos Medical Publishing, 2001.
3. Pittock SJ, Mayr WT, McClelland RL, Jorgensen NW, Weigand SD, Noseworthy JH et al. Change in MS-related disability in a population-based cohort: a 10-year follow-up study. Neurology 2004; 62: 51-59.
4. Paty DW, Ebers GC editors. Multiple sclerosis. FA Davis Company, 1998.
5. Weinshenker BG, Bass B, Rice GP, Noseworthy J, Carriere W, Baskerville J et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. 2. Predictive value of the early clinical course. Brain 1989; 112: 1419-28.
6. Fay BT, Boninger ML. The science behind mobility devices for individuals with multiple sclerosis. Med Eng Phys 2002; 24: 375-83.
7. Aronson KG. Quality of life among persons with multiple sclerosis and their caregivers. Neurology 1997; 48: 74-80.
8. Whetten-Goldstein K, Sloan FA, Goldstein LB, Kulas ED. A comprehensive assessment of the cost of multiple sclerosis in the United States. Mult Scler 1998; 4: 419-25.
9. Amato MP, Battaglia MA, Caputo D, Fattore G, Gerzeli S, Picaro M et al. The costs of multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional, multicenter cost-of-illness study in Italy. J Neurol 2002; 249: 152-63.
10. Murphy N, Confavreux C, Haas J, König N, Roullet M, Sailer M et al. Economic evaluation of multiple sclerosis in the UK, Germany and France. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 607-22.
11. Scherer MJ. Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disabil Rehabil 1996; 18: 439-48.
12. Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol 1993; 5: 36-45.
13. Louise-Bender PT, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 5-20.
14. Besio S. Il counselling nel settore degli ausili tecnologici: aspetti psicologici e risultati di un'indagine. Eur Medico 2001; 37: 247-48.
15. Scherer MJ, Galvin JC. Matching people with technology. Rehabil Manage 1994; 9: 128-30.
16. Scherer MJ. Living in the state of stuck: how technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities, third edition. Brookline Books, 2000.