Measuring effectiveness of and satisfaction with assistive devices from a user perspective: An exploration of the literature

Technology and Disability

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 83-90

  Wessels, Roelof D ^a   de Witte, L P ^a   van den Heuvel, W J A ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR REHABILITATION RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTHRITIS; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; ELECTRONICS; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MENTAL HEALTH; MOTORIZED TRANSPORT; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; ORTHOTICS; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PEER REVIEW; QUALITY OF LIFE; REHABILITATION MEDICINE; RELIABILITY; TECHNICAL AID; THEORETICAL MODEL; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 4644312126     PISSN: 10554181     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3233/tad-2004-16202     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. C.H. Bakker, Patient-oriented outcome assessment in rheumatic diseases; Thesis Rijksuniversiteit Limburg; Universitaire Pers Maastricht, 1995; ISBN 90-5278-188-5; chapter 8 Problem elicitation in AS and fibromyalgia; accepted for publishing in the Journal of Rheumatology.
2. O. Baron-Epel, M. Dushenat and N. Friedman, Evaluation of the consumer model: relationship between patients' expectations, perceptions and satisfaction with care, International journal for quality in health care 13(4) (2001), 317-323.
3. L. Demers, R. Weiss-Lambrou and B. Ska, Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST), Assist Technol 8 (1996), 3-13.
4. L. Demers, R. Weiss-Lambrou and B. Ska, Item analysis of the Québec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST), Assist. Technol. 12(2) (2000), 96-105.
5. L. Demers, R. Wessels, R. Weiss-Lambrou, B. Ska and L.de. Witte, Key dimensions of client satisfaction with assistive technology: a cross-validation of a Canadian measure in the Netherlands, Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 33 (2001), 187-191.
6. L. Demers, M. Monette, Y. Lapierre, D. Arnold and C. Wolfson, Relability, validity and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis, Disability and Rehabilitation 24(1/2/3) (2002), 21-30.
7. M. Fuhrer, Assistive technology outcomes research, challenges met and yet unmet, Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 80(7) (2001).
8. G.J. Gelderblom and L.P. de Witte, The assessment of assistive technology outcomes, affects and costs, Technology and disability 14 (2002), 91-94.
9. J. Geertzen, H. Gankema, J. Groothoff and P. Dijkstra, Consumer satisfaction in prosthetics and orthotics facilities, Prosthetics and Orthotics international 26 (2002), 64-71.
10. J. Heaton and C. Bamford, Assessing the outcomes of equipment and adaptations: issues and approaches, If the British journal of occupational therapy 64(7) (2001).
11. http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/search/.
12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi.
13. S. Jedeloo, L. De Witte, B. Linssens and A. Schrijvers, Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility, Disability and Rehabilitation 24(10) (2002), 550-557.
14. T.J. Kiresuk, A. Smith and J.E. Cardillo, Goal Attainment Scaling: Applications, Theory, and Measurement; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1994.
15. M. Law, S. Baptiste, A. Carswell, M. McColl and H. Polatajko, Pollock CanadiaOccupational Performance Measure, Ottawa: CAOT Publications, 1998.
16. D. Owens and C. Batchelor, Patients satisfaction and the elderly, Soc. Sci. Med. 42(11) (1996), 1483-1491.
17. A. Parasuraman, V. Zeithaml and L. Berry, SERVQUAL: multiple item scale measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, J Retailing 64(1) (1988), 12-40.
18. G. Pascoe, Patients satisfaction in primary health care: the literature review and analysis, Evaluation and program planning 6 (1983), 185-210.
19. D.A. Ruta, A.M. Garratt, M. Leng, J.T. Russell and L.M. McDonald, A new approach to the measurement of quality all for life, the Patient Generated Index, Medical care 32(11) (1994), 1109-1126.
20. F. DeRuyter, Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: and we understand the commitment? Assist Technol 7 (1995), 3-16.
21. S. Ryan, M. Stickel, P. Rigby and J. Jutai, Understanding the impact of electronic aids to daily living: evaluation of consumer satisfaction, Proceedings of the international conference on technology and aging September 12-14, Toronto, Canada, 2001.
22. M. Sherer and L. Cushman, Predicting satisfaction with assistive technology for a sample of adults with new spinal cord injuries, Psychol. Rep. 87(3 Pt 1) (2002), 981-987.
23. M. Shone Stickel, S. Ryan, P. Rigby and J. Jutai, Toward comprehensive evaluation of the impact of electronic aids to daily living: evaluation of consumer satisfaction, Disability and Rehabilitation 24(1/2/3) (2002), 115-125.
24. P. Tugwell, C. Bombardier, W.W. Buchanan, C.H. Goldsmith, E. Grace and B. Hanna, The MACTAR patient preference disability questionnaire - an individualized functional priority approach for assessing improvement in physical disability in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis, Journal of the rheumatology 14(3) (1978), 446-451.
25. R. Wessels, L.de. Witte, R. Weis-Lambrou, L. Demers and G. Wijlhuizen, A Dutch version of QUEST (D-QUEST) applied as a routine follow-up within he service delivery process, in: Improving the Quality of Life for the European Citizen, E. Placencia and E. Ballabio, eds, Washington, DC: IOS Press, 1998, pp. 420-424.
26. R. Wessels and L. de Witte, Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices, Disability and Rehabilitation 25(6) (2003), to its, 267.