Assessing the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of assistive technology interventions for enhancing mobility

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 149-158

  Fuhrer, Marcus J ^a  

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

Author keywords

Assistive technology; cost effectiveness; effectiveness; efficacy; mobility; outcomes research

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISABLED PERSON; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REVIEW; SELF HELP; UNITED STATES;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISABLED PERSONS; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROGRAM EVALUATION; SELF-HELP DEVICES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 62449139455     PISSN: 17483107     EISSN: 17483115     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17483100701374355     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, DeRuyter F. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:1243-1251.
2. Scherer M, Jutai J, Fuhrer M, Demers L, Deruyter F. A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disabil Rehabil: Ass Tech 2007;2:1-8.
3. DeRuyter F. The importance of outcome measures for assistive technology service delivery systems. Technol Disabil 1997;6:89-104.
4. Fuhrer MJ. Assistive technology outcomes research: challenges met and yet unmet. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 80:528-535.
5. Smith RO. Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: challenge and innovation. Assist Technol 1996;8:71-81.
6. Lenker JA, Scherer MJ, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, DeRuyter F. Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assist Technol 2005;17:7-22.
7. Holm MB. Our mandate for the new millennium: evidencebased practice. Am J Occup Ther 2000;54:575-585.
8. Manns PJ, Darrah J. Linking research and clinical practice in physical therapy: strategies for integration. Physiotherapy 2006;92:88-94.
9. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century, Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
10. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM (2nd ed.), London: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
11. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Coverage Center [Internet]. Available from: http://www.cms. hhs.gov/center/coverage.asp
12. Carlson D, Ehrlich N. Sources of payment for assistive technology: findings from a national survey of persons with disabilities. Assist Technol 2006;18:77-86.
13. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Coverage Database [Internet]. Decision Memo for Mobility Assistive Equipment (CAG-00274N). Available from: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/viewdecisionmemo.asp?id1/4143
14. Consortium for Assistive Technology Outcomes Research [Internet]. Available from: http://www.atoutcomes.com/ATOCdefault.htm
15. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, Tyrer P. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. Br Med J 2000;321:694-696.
16. Johnston M, Sherer M, Whyte J. Applying evidence standards to rehabilitation research. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 85:292-309.
17. Cronbach LJ, Ambron SR, Dornbusch SM, Hess RD, Hornik RC, Phillips DC, Walker DF, Weiner SS. Toward reform of program evaluation: aims, methods, and institutional arrangements, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1980.
18. Lipsey MW. Theory as method: small theories of treatments. In: Sechrest L, Perrin E, Bunker J, editors. Conference proceedings: research methodology-strengthening causal interpretations of non-experimental data. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1990. pp 33-52.
19. Fuhrer MJ. An overview of clinical trials in medical rehabilitation: impetuses, challenges, and needed future directions. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003;82:S8-15.
20. Jutai JW, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, Scherer MJ, DeRuyter F. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:294-302.
21. Rust KL, Smith RO. Assistive technology in the measurement of rehabilitation and health outcomes-A review and analysis of instruments. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:780-793.
22. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Technol Disabil 2002;14:101-105.
23. Day H, Jutai J, Campbell KA. Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24:31-37.
24. Dharne MG, Lenker J, Harris F, Sprigle S. Content validity of Assistive Technology Outcome Measure (ATOM), Version 2. RESNA 29th International Conference, June 23-26, 2006, Atlanta, GA: Arlington, VA: RESNA 2006.
25. Rosen L, Manor O, Engelhard D, Zucker D. In defense of the randomized controlled trial for health promotion research. Am J Public Hlth 2006;96:1181-1186.
26. Piantadosi S. Clinical trials: a methodologic perspective, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience; 2005.
27. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 2002.
28. Cochrane AL. Efficiency and effectiveness, London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1972.
29. Clark GN. Improving the transition from basic efficacy research to effectiveness studies: methodological issues and procedures. J Consulting Clin Psychol 1995;63:718-725.
30. Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus AC. Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Am J Public Hlth 2003;93:1261-1267.
31. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Hlth Care 1989;5:559-575.
32. Dougherty CJ. Quality-adjusted life years and the ethical values of health care. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1995; 74(Supplement):S29-33.
33. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
34. Harris F, Sprigle S. Cost analysis in assistive technology research. Assist Technol 2003;15:16-27.
35. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Clinical Trials Network. National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health [Internet]. Available from: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/TBI.cfm
36. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America [Internet]. Available from: http://www.resna.org/
37. American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine [Internet]. Available from: http://www.acrm.org/
38. Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe [Internet]. Available from: http://www.aaate.net/index.asp?auto-redirect1/ 4true&accept-initial-profile1/4standard
39. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) Long-Range Plan for Fiscal Years 2005-2009 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ncddr.org/new/announcements/lrp/fy2005-2009/index.html
40. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.naric.com/research/pd/type.cfm
41. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR), Phase II [Internet]. Available from: http://www.naric.com/research/pd/results.cfm?type1/4type&display1/ 4detailed&criteria1/4Small %20Business%20Innovative%20Research%20(SBIR),%20 Phase%20II
42. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects [Internet]. Available from: http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/
43. Kinsella K, Velkoff VA. An aging world: 2001, Series P95/01-1. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; 2001.
44. Norburn EK, Bernard S, Konrad T, Woomert A, DeFriese G, Kalsbeek WD, Koch GG, Ory MG. Self-care and assistance from others in coping with functional status limitations among a national sample of older adults. J Gerontol: Soc Sci 1995; 50B:S101-109.