Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice

Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 146-158

  Bernd, T ^a   Van Der Pijl, D ^a   De Witte, L P ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Assistive device; Assistive technology; Disability and Health (ICF); International Classification of Functioning; Model; Provision; Service delivery process; Standard Classification ISO 9999

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF FUNCTIONING, DISABILITY AND HEALTH; MEDLINE; MODEL; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; REHABILITATION; RELIABILITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

EID: 72049122113     PISSN: 11038128     EISSN: 16512014     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/11038120802449362     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Bickenbach JE. Disability human rights, law, and policy. In: Albrecht GL, Seelman KD, Bury M, editors. Handbook of disability studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2001. p 565-584
2. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development. The United Nations and disabled persons [Online]. UN enable [updated April 2003; cited 12 March 2008]. Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dis50y90.htm
3. Chapman AR, editor. Health care reform: A human rights approach. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 1994.
4. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities [Online], Article 26-Habilitation and Rehabilitation [updated 2006; cited 16 January 2008]. Available at: http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.aspid-286
5. European Commission. Green Paper on Demographic Change. [updated March 2005; cited 12 March 2008]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment-social/ news/2005/mar/demog-gp-en.html
6. Hofmarcher MM, Oxley H, Rusticelli E. Improved health system performance through better care coordination [Online]. OECD health working paper no.30 [updated December 2007; cited 12 March 2008]. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/22/9/39791610.pdf
7. Scherer MJ, editor. Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2002.
8. Cook AM, Hussey SM. Assistive technologies, principles and practice. 2nd ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 2002.
9. Ryan C, Tewey B, Newman S, Turner T, Jaeger RJ. Estimating research productivity and quality in assistive technology: A bibliometric analysis spanning four decades. IEEE 2004;12:422-429
10. Gitlin LN. Assistive technology in the home and community for older people: Psychological and social considerations. In: Scherer MJ, editor. Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2002. p 109-122
11. International Organization for Standardization. International Standard ISO 9999: 2007(E) Assistive products for persons with disability- Classification and terminology. 4th ed. Geneva: ISO Copyright Office; 2007.
12. Hoenig H, Landerman LR, Shipp KM, Pieper C, Richardson M, Pahel N, George L. A clinical trial of a rehabilitation expert clinician versus usual care for providing manual wheelchairs. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005;53:1712-1720
13. Wielandt T, Scherer MJ. Reducing AT abandonment: Proposed principles for AT selection and recommendation [Online]. August 2004 [updated December 2005; cited 27 February 2008]. Available at: http://www.e-bility.com/articles/at- selection.php
14. Craddock G. Partnership and assistive technology in Ireland. In: Scherer MJ, editor. Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2002. p 253-266
15. Harris F. Conceptual issues in the measurement of participation among wheeled mobility device users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Techn 2007;2:137-148
16. Hoenig H, Giacobbi P, Levy CE. Methodological challenges confronting researchers of wheeled mobility aids and other technologies. Disabil Rehabil Assist Techn 2007;2:159-168
17. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research, principles and methods. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
18. Lenker JA, Paquet V. A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol 2003;15:1-15.
19. Lenker JA, Jutai J. Assistive technology outcomes research and clinical practice: What role for ICF? [Online] [updated 2002; cited 17 September 2007]. Available at: www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads/icf-jun02-papers-6A-e.pdf
20. World Health Organization [ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (English full version) Online] [updated June 15 2001; cited 3 January 2008]. Available at: http://www.who.int/ classifications/icf/site/online browser/icf.cfm
21. Scherer MJ, Jutai J, Fuhrer M, Demers L, DeRuyter F. A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disabil Rehabil Assist Techn 2007;2:1-8.
22. Scherer MJ, Glueckauf R. Assessing the benefits of assistive technology for activities and participation. Rehab Psychol 2005;50:132-141
23. Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, Cushman L, Scherer JV. Predictors of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27:1321-1331
24. Deutsche Vereinigung fur Rehabilitation (DVfR). Fureine optimierte Versorgung mit Hilfsmitteln. Eine Expertise der Deutschen Vereinigung fur Rehabilitation zu aktuellen Problemen bei der Versorgung mit Hilfsmitteln [Optimizing provision of assistive technology. Expert opinion of the German Society for Rehabilitation, DVfR, on current issues in the provision of technical aids and assistive devices]. Rehabil (Stuttg) 2007;46:175-186
25. De Kleijn-de VrankrijkerMW, Valk SA. ISO 9999 submission to the WHO-FIC [Online] [cited 5 June 2008]. Available at: www.rivm.nl/who-fic/Annuals/ cologne33.pdf
26. DePoy E, Gitlin LN. Introduction to research. Understanding and applying multiple strategies. 3rd ed. St Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby; 2005.
27. Verza R, Lopes Carvalho ML, Battaglia MA, Messmer Uccelli M. An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Multiple Sclerosis 2006;12:88-93.
28. Copley J, Ziviani J. Use of a team-based approach to assistive technology assessment and planning for children with multiple disabilities: A pilot study. Assist Technol 2007;19:109-125
29. Ripat J, Booth A. Characteristics of assistive technology service delivery models: stakeholder perspectives and preferences. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:1461-1470
30. Scherer MJ. Matching person & technology: A series of assessments for evaluating predispositions to and outcomes of technology use in rehabilitation, education, the workplace & other settings. Rev. ed. Webster, NY: Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 1998.
31. Scherer MJ. Assessing the benefits of using assistive technologies and other supports for thinking, remembering and learning. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:731-739
32. 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
33. Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol Disabil 2002;14:125-131
34. Federici S, Scherer MJ, Micangeli A, Lombardo C, Olivetti Belardinelli M. A cross-cultural analysis between disability self-evaluation and individual predisposition to use assistive technology. In: Craddock GM, McCormack LP, Reilly RB, Knops HTP, editors. Assistive technology: Shaping the future. Amsterdam: ISO Press; 2003. p 941-946
35. Scherer MJ. Matching assistive technology and child: A process and series of assessments for selecting and evaluating technologies used by infants & young children. Webster, NY: Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 1997.
36. Ivanoff SD, Iwarsson S, Sonn U. Occupational therapy research on assistive technology and physical environmental issues: A literature review. Can J Occup Ther 2006;73: 109-119
37. Roelands M, Van Oost P, Depoorter AM, Buysse A. A socialcognitive model to predict the use of assistive devices for mobility and self-care in elderly people. Gerontologist 2002;42:39-50. (Pubitemid 34142168)
38. Hubert M. Die Praxis der Bedarfsermittlung zur Hilfsmittelversorgung in den Niederlanden [The practice of needs assessment for the supply of technical aids in the Netherlands]. Rehabil (Stuttg) 2003;42:52-59
39. Jutai J, Day H. Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technol Disabil 2002;14:107-111
40. Demers L, Weis-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
41. Wessels R, de Witte L, Andrich R, Ferrario M, Persson J, Oberg B, et al. IPPA, a user-centred approach to assess effectiveness of assistive technology provision. Technol Disabil 2000;13:105-115
42. Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl MA, Polatajko H, Pollock N. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. 2nd ed. Rev. Ottawa: CAOT Publications ACE; 1998.
43. Townsend E, Stanton S, Law M, Polatajko M, Baptiste S, Thompson-Franson T, et al. Enabling occupation: An occupational therapy perspective. Rev. ed. Ottawa: CAOT Publications ACE; 2002.
44. Smith RO, Jansen CJ, Seitz J, Longenecker Rust K. ATOMS Project Technical Report: The ICF in the context of assistive technology (AT) interventions and outcome [Online] [updated August 2006; cited 21 November 2007]. Available at: http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/archive/icf.html
45. 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;84:780-796
46. Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, U stun B, Stucki G. ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med 2005;37:212-218
47. Scherer MJ. Enhancing assistive technology selection and use: Connecting the ICF and ISO9999. Newsletter on the WHO- 11 FIC, 2(1), 2004 [Online] [updated March 2008; cited 21 November 2007]. Available at: http://www.rivm.nl/who-fic/ newsletter/newsletter2004-1.pdf
48. Wade DT, Halligan PW. Do biomedical models of illness make for good healthcare systems? BMJ 2004;329:1398-1401
49. Hoijtink EJ, Westerhuis E. Eindrapportage. Relatie Cliq en GPH [Final report, relationship Cliq and GPH] [Online] [updated May 2006; cited 5 March 2008]. Available at: www.nictiz.nl/?mid-71&pg-52&doc- 66&download&ext-pdf
50. MURINET European project [Online] [cited 3 January 2008]. Available from: http://www.headnetgroup.it/murinet.asp