Activity and participation, quality of life and user satisfaction outcomes of environmental control systems and smart home technology: A systematic review

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 189-206

  Brandt, Åse ^a   Samuelsson, Kersti ^b   Töytäri, Outi ^c   Salminen, Anna Liisa ^d  

^a Danish Centre for Assistive Technology   (Denmark)

^b LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^d SOCIAL INSURANCE INSTITUTION   (Finland)

Author keywords

assistive devices; Assistive technology; EADL; occupational therapy; self help devices

Indexed keywords

DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; ENVIRONMENT; HUMAN; MOTOR ACTIVITY; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SATISFACTION; SELF HELP;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ENVIRONMENT; HUMANS; MOTOR ACTIVITY; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; PERSONAL SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; SELF-HELP DEVICES; SOCIAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 79953285916     PISSN: 17483107     EISSN: 17483115     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17483107.2010.532286     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Shakespeare T. The social relations of care. In: Lewis G, Gewirtz S, Clarke J, editors. Rethinking social policy. London: Open University and Sage; 2000. pp 52-65.
2. Barker RN, Kendall MD, Amsters DI, Pershouse KJ, Haines TP, Kuipers P. The relationship between quality of life and disability across the lifespan for people with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2009;47:149-155.
3. Cooper RA, Dicianno BE, Brewer B, LoPresti E, Ding D, Simpson R, Grindle G, Wang H. A perspective on intelligent devices and environments in medical rehabilitation. Med Eng Phys 2008;30:1387-1398.
4. Stenberg L, Matthiassen N-E, Jordansen IK, Salminen AL, Kotiranta P, Palsdottir B, Mørk T, Flø R, Leczinsky C, Estreen M, editors. Provision of assistive technology in the Nordic countries. 2nd edition. Vällingby, Sweden: NUH - Nordic Centre for Rehabilitation Technology, 2007.
5. International Organization for Standardization. Assistive products for persons with disabilities - classification and terminology. DS/EN ISO 9999: 2007(E). Geneva: ISO Copyright Office; 2007.
6. Lange ML. The future of electronic aids to daily living. Am J Occup Ther 2002;56:107-109.
7. Jutai J. Psychosocial impact of electronic aids to daily living. Assist Technol 2000;12:123-131. (Pubitemid 32467138)
8. Smart house definition. Internet. 2010. http://architecture.about.com/od/ buildyourhous1/g/smarthouse.htm. Last accessed June 2010.
9. Petterson I. Significance of assistive devices in the daily life of persons with stroke and their spouses [Doctoral dissertation]. Örebro, Sweden: Örebro University; 2006.
10. WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
11. Jutai J, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, Scherer M, DeRuyter F. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:294-302. (Pubitemid 40389071)
12. Roland M, Torgerson DJ. Understanding controlled trials: what are pragmatic trials? Br Med J (BMJ) 1998;316:285-286.
13. Gartlehner G, Hansen RA, Nissman D, Lohr KN, Carey TS. Criteria for distinguishing effectiveness from efficacy trials in systematic reviews. Technical review 12 (prepared by the RTI-International-University of North Carolina evidence-based practice center under contract no. 290-02-0016). AHRQ publication no.06-0046. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006.
14. Brandt Å, Kreiner S, Iwarsson S. Mobility-related participation and user satisfaction: Construct validity in the context of powered wheelchair use. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2010;5:305-313.
15. Harper A, editor. WHOQOL-BREF. Introduction, administration, scoring and generic version of the assessment. Field trial version 1996. Geneva: Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization. pp 7.
16. Rust KL, Smith RO. Satisfaction with assistive technology: what are we measuring? In: Resna, editor. Conference proceedings from the 27th International Conference on Technology & Disability. Arlington, US: Resna; 2004.
17. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology QUEST version 2.0. An outcome measure for assistive technology devices. Webster, NY: The Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 2000.
18. Chan M, Estève D, Escriba C, Campo E. A review of smart homes - present state and future challenges. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2008;91:55-81.
19. Cheek P, Nikpour L, Heather N. Aging well with smart technology. Nurs Adm Q 2005;29:329-338.
20. Craig A, Tran Y, McIsaac P, Boord P. The efficacy and benefits of environmental control systems for the severely disabled. Med Sci Monit 2004;11:RA32-RA39.
21. Ding D, Cooper RA, Kaminski BA, Kanaly JR, Allegretti A, Chaves E, Hubbard S. Integrated control and related technology of assistive devices. Assist Technol 2003;15:89-97.
22. Topo P. Technology and the needs of people with dementia: a literature review. In: Eizmendi G, Azkoitia JM, Craddock G, editors. Challenges for assistive technology. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2007. pp 254-258.
23. Schünemann HJ, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ, Bria WF, El-Solh AA, Ernst A, Fahy BF, Gould MK, Horan KL, Krishnan JA, Manthous CA, Maurer JR, McNicholas WT, Oxman AD, Rubenfeld G, Turino GM, Guyatt G; ATS Documents Development and Implementation Committee. An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006;174:605-614. (Pubitemid 44330555)
24. Merlin T, Weston A, Tooher R. Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian 'level of evidence'. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009;9:34.
25. Salminen A, Brandt Å, Samuelsson K, Töytäri O, Malmivaara A. Mobility devices to promote activity and participation: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med 2009;41:697-706.
26. Cicerone KD. Evidence-based practice and the limits of rational rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2005;86:1073-1074. (Pubitemid 40797757)
27. Borghouts AJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM. The clinical course and prognostic factors of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. Pain 1998;77:1-13. (Pubitemid 28398828)
28. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L; The Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:1290-1299.
29. Shekelle PG, Andersson G, Bombardier C, Cherkin D, Deyo R, Keller R, Lee C, Liang M, Lipscomb B, Spratt K, Weinstein J. A Brief Introduction to the Critical Reading of the Clinical Literature. Spine 1994;19(18)(Suppl):2028S- 2031S.
30. van Tulder M, Malmivaara A, Hayden J, Koes B. Statistical significance versus clinical importance: trials on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain as example. Spine 2007;32:1785-1790. (Pubitemid 47075540)
31. Boman IL, Tham K, Granqvist A, Bartfai A, Hemmingson H. Using electronic aids to daily living after acquired brain injury: a study of the learning process and the usability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007;2:23-33.
32. Croser R, Garrett R, Seeger B, Davies P. Effectiveness of electronic aids to daily living: increased independence and decreased frustration. Aust Occup Ther J 2001;48:35-44. (Pubitemid 32328160)
33. Harmer J, Bakheit AM. The benefits of environmental control systems as perceived by disabled users and their carers. Brit J Occup Ther 1999;62:394-398. (Pubitemid 29456985)
34. Kanto-Ronkanen A, Leino E, Salminen A. The benefits of environmental control units in everyday life, view of users and helpers. In: Craddock G, McCormack L, Reilly RB, Knops H, editors. Assistive technology - shaping the future. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2010. pp 596-601.
35. Maguire SM, McCann JP, Swallow M. An audit of the provision of environmental control systems in Northern Ireland, 1992-1997. Clin Rehabil 2001;15:320-323.
36. Rigby P, Ryan S, Joos S, Cooper B, Jutai J, Steggles E. Impact of electronic aids to daily living on the lives of persons with cervical spinal cord injuries. Assist Technol 2005;17:89-97. (Pubitemid 41640909)
37. Ripat J. Function and impact of electronic aids to daily living for experienced users. Technol Disabil 2006;18:79-87. (Pubitemid 44088987)
38. Ripat J, Strock A. Users' perceptions of the impact of electronic aids to daily living throughout the acquisition process. Assist Technol 2004;16:63-72. (Pubitemid 38955461)
39. Stickel MS, Ryan S, Rigby PJ, Jutai J. 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)
40. Sundar V, Tomita M, Stanton K. Effects of currently available smart home technology on frail elders. In: Mann WC, Helal A, editors. Promoting independence for older persons with disabilities. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2006.
41. Tomita MR, Mann WC, Stanton K, Tomita AD, Sundar V. Use of currently available smart home technology by frail elders: process and outcomes. Top Geriatr Rehabil 2007;23:24-34.
42. Vincent C, Drouin G, Routhier F. Examination of new environmental control applications. Assist Technol 2002;14:98-111. (Pubitemid 38252278)
43. Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Can J Occup Ther 1996;9:159-168. (Pubitemid 26362683)
44. Day H, Jutai J, Strong G. Visual aids retention and abandonment. Vision '99 Conference Proceedings, 1999.
45. Martin S, Kelly G, Kernohan WG, McCreight B, Nugent C. Smart home technologies for health and social care support. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;4:CD006412. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006412.pub2.
46. Demiris G, Hensel BK. Technologies for an aging society: a systematic review of "smart home" applications. IMIA Yearb Med Inform 2008:33-40.
47. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1991.
48. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998;317:1185-1190. (Pubitemid 28488507)
49. Malmivaara A. Effectiveness and efficiency of assistive technology. STAKES, Helsinki, Finland: Nordic Assistive Technology Seminar. Outcomes of Assistive Technology - Supporting Practice and Development, 2008.
50. Lilford RJ. Ethics of clinical trials from a Bayesian and decision analytic perspective: whose equipoise is it anyway? BMJ 2003;326:980-981.
51. Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. At what degree of belief in research hypothesis is a trial in humans justified? J Eval Clin Pract 2002;8:269-276.
52. Schmoor C, Caputo A, Schumacher M. Evidence from nonrandomised studies: a case study on the estimation of causal effects. Am J Epidemiol 2008;167:1120-1129. (Pubitemid 351601242)
53. Bierhoff I, van Berlo A, Abascal J, Allen B, Civit A, Fellbaum K, Kemppainen E, Bitterman N, Freitas D, Kristiansson K. Smart home environment. In: Roe PR, editor. Towards an inclusive future. Impact and wider potential of information and communication technologies, COST 219ter. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2007. pp 110-156.