The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 225-242

  Martin, Jay K ^a   Martin, Liam G ^b   Stumbo, Norma J ^c   Morrill, Joshua H ^d  

^a University of Wisconsin Madison   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c Midwest Alliance   (United States)

^d Morrill Solutions   (United States)

Author keywords

abandonment; Assistive technology; consumer satisfaction; disability; pre purchase decision making

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONSUMER; DECISION MAKING; DISABLED PERSON; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SELF HELP; STATISTICS; TIME; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DECISION MAKING; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SELF-HELP DEVICES; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79953279101     PISSN: 17483107     EISSN: 17483115     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17483107.2010.522685     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Bernd T, Van Der Pijl D, De Witte LP. Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice. Scand J Occup Ther 2009;16:146-158.
2. Wielandt T, Scherer MJ. [Internet] Reducing AT abandonment: proposed principles for AT selection and recommendation. [Created August 2004, updated December 2005]. http://www.e-bility.com/articles/at-selection.php. Last accessed cited 20 April 2010.
3. Lenker JA, Paquet VL. A review of conceptual models fore assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol 2003;15:1-15. (Pubitemid 38252270)
4. Eggers SL, Myaskovsky L, Burkitt KH, Tolerico M, Switzer GE, Fine MJ, Boninger ML. A preliminary model of wheelchair service delivery. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90:1030-1038.
5. Wessels RD, de Witte LP, van den Heuvel WJA. Measuring effectiveness of and satisfaction with assistive devices from a user perspective: an exploration of the literature. Technol Disabil 2004;16:83-90. (Pubitemid 39294787)
6. Scherer MJ, Sax CL. Measures of assistive technology predisposition and use. In: Mpofu E, Oakland T, editors. Rehabilitation and health assessment: applying ICF Guidelines, New York: Spring Publishing Company; 2010. pp 229-254.
7. Mirza M, Hammel J. Consumer-directed goal planning in the delivery of assistive technology services for people who are ageing with intellectual disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 2009;22:445-457.
8. Louise-Bender Pape T, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:5-20. (Pubitemid 34105673)
9. Peterson W. Role of persons with a disability in the design process. Top Stroke Rehabil 2008;15:87-96. (Pubitemid 351631452)
10. Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol 1993;5:36-45.
11. Riemer-Reiss ML, Wacker RR. Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. J Rehabil 2000;66:44-50.
12. Jacobs P, Hailey D, Jones A. Economic evaluation for assistive technology policy decisions. J Disabil Policy Stud 2003;14:119-125.
13. Verza R, Lopes Carvalho ML, Battaglia MA, Messmer Uccelli M. An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Mult Scler 2006;12:88-93. (Pubitemid 43169242)
14. Copley J, Ziviana J. Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occup Ther Int 2004;11:229-243. (Pubitemid 39642239)
15. Hocking C. Function or feelings: factors in abandonment of assistive devices. Technol Disabil 1993;11:3-11.
16. Arthanat S, Bauer SM, Lenker JA, Nochajski SM, Wu YWB. Conceptualisation and measurement of assistive technology usability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007;2:235-248.
17. Gibson BE, Upshur REG, Young NL, McKeever P. Disability, technology, and place: social and ethical implications of long-term dependency on medical devices. Ethics Plan Environ 2007;10:7-28. (Pubitemid 46277178)
18. Gitlin LN. Why older people accept or reject assistive technology. Generations 1995;19:41-46.
19. Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching person & technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol Disabil 2002;14:125-131. (Pubitemid 35282507)
20. Waldron D, Layton N. Hard and soft assistive technologies: defining roles for clinicians. Aust Occup Ther J 2008;55:61-64.
21. Ward AL, Sanjak M, Duffy K, Bravver E, Williams N, Nicols M, Brooks BR. Power wheelchair prescription, utilization, satisfaction, and cost for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: preliminary data for evidence-based guidelines. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:268-272.
22. 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. (Pubitemid 26196802)
23. Alper S, Raharinirina S. Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: a review and synthesis of the literature. J Spec Educ Technol 2006;21:47-64.
24. O'Day BL, Corcoran PJ. Assistive technology: problems and policy alternatives. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:1165-1170.
25. Parette HP, Brotherson MJ. Family-centred and culturally responsive assistive technology decision making. Infants Young Child 2004;17:355-367. (Pubitemid 39422069)
26. Wessels R, Dijcks M, Soede GJ, Gelderblom GJ, De Witte L. Non-use of provided assistive technology devices: a literature review. Technol Disabil 2003;15:231-238. (Pubitemid 38165427)
27. Scherer MJ, Sax C, VanBiervliet A, Cushman LA, Scherer JV. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychological factors. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:1321-1331. (Pubitemid 41823742)
28. 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;52:1712-1720. (Pubitemid 43109934)
29. Scherer MJ, Jutai J, Fuhrer M, Demers L, DeRuyter FA. A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATD). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007;2:1-8.
30. Scherer MJ, Glueckauf R. Assessing the benefits of assistive technology for activities and participation. Rehabil Psychol 2005;50:132-141. (Pubitemid 40770594)
31. Wallace JF, Hayes M, Nell Bailey M. Assistive technology loan financing: a status of program impact and consumer satisfaction. Technol Disabil 2000;13:17-22. (Pubitemid 32551792)
32. Eagles Burke C. Summary of reliability study of matrices. Technol Disabil 1999;10:181-185.
33. 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.
34. Arthanat S, Nochajski SM, Lenker JA, Bauer SM, Wu YWB. Measuring usability of assistive technology from a multicontextual perspective: the case of power wheelchairs. Am J Occup Ther 2009;63:751-764.
35. Verbrugge LM, Rennert C, Madans JH. The great efficacy of personal and equipment assistance in reducing disability. Am J Public Health 1997;87:384-392. (Pubitemid 27157450)
36. Duff P, Dolphin C. Cost-benefit analysis of assistive technology to support independence for people with dementia - Part 2: results from employing the ENABLE cost-benefit model in practice. Technol Disabil 2007;19:79-90. (Pubitemid 46647877)
37. Dahlin Ivanoff S, Sonn U. Assistive devices in activities of daily living used by persons with age-related macular degeneration: a population study of 85-year-olds living at home. Scand J Occup Ther 2005;12:10-17. (Pubitemid 40394256)
38. Stumbo NJ, Martin JK, Hedrick BN. Assistive technology: impact on education, employment, and independence of individuals with physical disabilities. J Vocat Rehabil 2009;30:99-110.
39. Nochajski SM, Oddo C, Beaver K. Technology and transition: tools for success. Technol Disabil 1999;11:93-101. (Pubitemid 30142457)
40. Gamble MJ, Dowler DL, Orslene LE. Assistive technology: choosing the right tool for the right job. J Vocat Rehabil 2006;24:73-80.
41. Gitlin L. From hospital to home: Individual variations in experience with assistive devices among older adults. In: Gray DB, Quatrano LA, Lieberman ML, editors. Designing and using assistive technology: the human perspective, Baltimore MD: Paul H. Brookes; 1998. pp 299-309.
42. Shone Stickel M, Ryan S, Rigby PJ, Jutai JW. Toward a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of electronic aids to daily living: evaluation of consumer satisfaction. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:115-125. (Pubitemid 34105683)
43. Kaye HS. Computer and Internet use among people with disabilities. San Francisco, CA: Disability Statistics Centre, Institute for Health and Aging, University of California; 2000.
44. Disability Rights Commission. The Web: access and inclusion for disabled people. London: Author; 2004.
45. Dobransky K, Eszter H. The disability divide in internet access and use. Inform Commun Soc 2006;9:313-334. (Pubitemid 43941494)
46. Mitchell S, Ciemnecki A, CyBulski K, Markesich J. Removing barriers to survey participation for persons with disabilities. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.; 2006.
47. Rhodes SD, Bowie DA, Hergenrather KC. Collecting behavioural data using the world wide web: considerations for researchers. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:68-75.
48. Hubbard PA, Broome ME, Antia LA. Pain, coping, and disability in adolescents and young adults with cystic fibrosis: a web-based study. Paediatr Nurs 2005;31:82-86.
49. Owens LK. Introduction to survey research design. 2005. Electronic citation, http://www.srl.uic.edu. Last accessed 10 March 2008.
50. Atkinson R, Flint J. [Internet]. Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33; Guildford, England: Department of Sociology, Surrey University; 2001. Electronic citation. http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/. Last accessed cited 10 February 2009.
51. Faugier J, Sargeant M. Sampling hard to reach populations. J Adv Nurs 1997;26:790-797. (Pubitemid 127453301)
52. Porter SR, Whitcomb ME. The impact of contact type of web survey response rates. Public Opin Q 2003;67:579-588. (Pubitemid 38389635)
53. Bellini JL, Rumrill PD Jr. Validity in rehabilitation research. J Vocat Rehabil 1999;13:131-138.
54. Fuhrer MJ. Assistive technology outcomes research: challenges met and unmet. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2002;80:528-535.
55. McMillen A-M, Söderberg S. Disabled persons' experience of dependence on assistive devices. Scand J Occup Ther 2002;9:176-183. (Pubitemid 36104745)
56. Schweitzer JA, Mann WC, Nochajski S, Tomita M. Patterns of engagement in leisure activity by older adults using assistive devices. Technol Disabil 1999;11:103-117. (Pubitemid 30142458)
57. Hammel J, Lai J-S, Heller T. The impact of assistive technology and environmental interventions on function and living situation status with people who are ageing with developmental disabilities. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:93-105. (Pubitemid 34105681)
58. Johnson KL, Dudgeon B, Kuehn C, Walker W. Assistive technology use among adolescents and young adults with spina bifida. Am J Public Health 2007;97:330-336. (Pubitemid 47279383)
59. Parette P Jr, VanBierbliet A. Rehabilitation assistive technology issues for infants and young children with disabilities: a preliminary examination. J Rehabil 1999;57:27-36.
60. Pell SD, Gillies RM, Carss M. Relationship between use of technology and employment rates for people with physical disabilities in Australia: implications for education and training programmes. Disabil Rehabil 1997;19:332-338. (Pubitemid 27373350)