Making use of research: Clinical views on an evaluation of everyday technology use

Abstract

Objective: The study aim was to investigate how and when an evaluation of perceived difficulty in use of everyday technology (Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire, ETUQ) could be used in clinical occupational therapy. Method: Eight focus-group interviews were undertaken with a total of 42 participants (occupational therapists), and data were analysed with a constant comparative approach. Results: The findings are presented in four main categories, including (i) appropriate purposes and contexts for using ETUQ, (ii) standardization versus individual flexibility, (iii) approaching everyday technology use and occupation as one whole, and (iv) synthesizing and documentation. Conclusions: In conclusion, the participants considered ability to use technology to be an important topic for occupational therapy, particularly in investigations of clients with subtle disabilities and in connection with discharge from hospital – but not in inpatient care. They had different views on how to integrate ETUQ with evaluations of occupational performance, and new ideas on how information about clients’ ability to use technology could be utilized in interventions. They held standardized evaluations in high regard, but a paradox appeared in that many of them would use ETUQ in a non-standardized way, while simultaneously asking for a standardized output to be used in clients’ medical files and to guide interventions.

Key words:

• assessment
• evidence-based practice
• IADL
• ICT
• knowledge dissemination
• knowledge translation
• occupational therapy

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to the occupational therapists who participated in the focus groups and to Monica Pantzar and Camilla Malinowsky, who served as assistants. The study was financially supported by the Strategic Research Programme in Care Sciences (SFO-V) at Karolinska Institutet, and Stockholm County Council through the agreement on medical training and clinical research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and the Karolinska Institutet.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.