Wheelchair and seating assistive technology provision: a gateway to freedom

References

• Sund T, Iwarsson S, Andersen MC, et al. Documentation of and satisfaction with the service delivery process of electric powered scooters among adult users in different national contexts. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(2):151–160.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Visagie S, Mlambo T, Van der Veen J, et al. Impact of structured wheelchair services on satisfaction and function of wheelchair users in Zimbabwe. Afr J Disabil. 2016;5(1):222–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(5):305–313.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• May M, Rugg S. Electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs: recipients’ views of their effects on occupational performance and quality of life. Br J Occup Ther. 2010;73(1):2–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rousseau-Harrison K, Rochette A, Routhier F, et al. Perceived impacts of a first wheelchair on social participation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012;7(1):37–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Papathomas A, Williams TL, Smith B. Understanding physical activity participation in spinal cord injured populations: three narrative types for consideration. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being. 2015;10:27295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjelle K, Vik K. The ups and downs of social participation: experiences of wheelchair users in Norway. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(25–26):2479–2489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karmarkar AM, Dicianno BE, Graham JE, et al. Factors associated with provision of wheelchairs in older adults. Assist Technol. 2012;24(3):155–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gowran RJ, McKay EA, O’Regan B. Sustainable solutions for wheelchair and seating assistive technology provision: presenting a cosmopolitan narrative with rich pictures. Technol Disabil. 2014;26(2–3):137–152.
   Google Scholar
• Hammel J, Southall K, Jutai J, et al. Evaluating use and outcomes of mobility technology: a multiple stakeholder analysis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(4):294–304.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dijcks BPJ, De Witte LP, Gelderblom GJ, et al. Non-use of assistive technology in The Netherlands: a non-issue? Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006;1(1–2):97–102.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gowran RJ, McKay EA, O’Regan B. Uniting nations in wheelchair provision: developed and developing worlds. Pap. Proc. Eur. Seat. Symp. (ESS2009), 14-17 Sept. Dublin Central Remedial Clinic. 2009. p. 90–92.
   Google Scholar
• Ripat J, Woodgate R. The intersection of culture, disability and assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(2):87–96..
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety. Proposals for the reform of the Northern Ireland wheelchair service. Northern Ireland: Department of Health; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• British National Health Service. Health care standards for NHS-commissioned Wheelchair Services. Europe: British National Health Service; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• American Disability Amendments Act [Internet]. 2008; [cited 2011 Sep 20]. Available from: http://access-board.gov/about/laws/ADA.htm
   Google Scholar
• De Witte L, Knops H, Pyfers L, et al. European service delivery systems in rehabilitation technology. The Netherlands: European Commission; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Nordic Cooperation on Disability Issues (NHS). Provision of Assistive Technology in the Nordic Countries. London: NHS; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Gowran R, McCabe M, Murphy N, et al. Wheelchair and seating service provision: exploring users’ perspectives. Irish J Occup Ther. 2012;39:3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Gowran R, Casey J, Daly J. Utilising a sustainable community of practice model to build best practice in wheelchair provision on the Island of Ireland. Occup. Ther. without Borders Integr. justice with Pract. 2nd ed. China: Elsevier; 2017. p. 263–76.
   Google Scholar
• Clark J. From the beginning: a developmental perspective on movement and mobility. Quest. 2005;57(1):37–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadimitriou C. Becoming en‐wheeled: the situated accomplishment of re‐embodiment as a wheelchair user after spinal cord injury. Disabil Soc. 2008;23(7):691–704.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Marco A, Russell M, Masters M. Standards for wheelchair prescription. Aust Occ Ther J. 2003;50(1):30–39.
   Google Scholar
• Mortenson W, Oliffe J, Miller W, et al. Grey spaces: the wheeled fields of residential care. Sociology of Health and Illness June. Sociol Heal Illn. 2012;34(3):315–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [Internet]. 2008. p. 4–19. [cited 2018 Nov 27]. Available from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/technology/en/index.html
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation, World Bank. World Report on Disability [Internet]. Washington DC and Geneva. 2011 [cited 2020 May 13]. Available from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Development Programme. Sustainable Development Goals [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Nov 27]. Available from: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. Guidelines for the provision of manual wheelchairs in less resourced settings. Geneva: WHO; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Seventy-First World Health Assembly. Improving Access to Assistive Technology. [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Nov 30]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA71/A71_R8-en.pdf?TSPD_101_R0=eaa3b8aaf23929227 e06a54f6857f5acl0d0000000000000002bb914e6dffff00000000000000000000000
   Google Scholar
• USAID. Wheelchair stakeholders’ meeting report. Bangalore: USAID; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Smith RO, Scherer MJ, Cooper R, et al. Assistive technology products: a position paper from the first global research, innovation, and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):473–485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmond D, Layton N, Bentley J, et al. Assistive technology and people: a position paper from the first global research, innovation and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):437–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell JW, Hirose M. Mixed methods and survey research in family medicine and community health. Fam Med Com Health. 2019;7(2):e000086.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(2):92–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Checkland P, Scholes J. Soft systems methodology in action. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Wenger E. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge university press; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Capra F. The hidden Connections-A science for sustainable living. London: Flamingo; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Ybema S, Yanow D, Wels H. Organizational ethnography: studying the complexity of everyday life. Los Angeles; SAGE; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Kane R. A descriptive overview of wheelchair service in the republic of Ireland: exploring wheelchair users’ perspective and level of satisfaction with the service. Irish J Occup Ther. 2000;30:2–11.
   Google Scholar
• Parker M, De Witte L, Johnson I. Improving service delivery systems for assistive technology- a European Strategy. Sweden: Google Scholar; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• National Health Service. Standards for Better Health: Health Care Standards for Wheelchair Services under the NHS [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2015 Mar 6]. Available from: http://www.wheelchairmanagers.nhs.uk/servicestandards.pdf
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. Wheelchair service training package: reference manual for participants: basic level. Geneva: WHO; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan EA, Hvizdak EE. Online survey tools: ethical and methodological concerns of human research ethics committees. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2009;4(2):37–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vaus D. Surveys in Social Research. 6th ed. Oxon: Routledge; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–1288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamaraj D, Bray N, Rispin K, et al. A conceptual framework to assess effectiveness in wheelchair provision. African J Disabil. 2017;6:a335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ripat J, Colatruglio A. Exploring winter community participation among wheelchair users: an online focus group. Occup Ther Healthc. 2016;30(1):95–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey A, Rice-Oxley M, Dean T. A qualitative study comparing the experiences of tilt-in-space wheelchair use and conventional wheelchair use by clients severely disabled with multiple sclerosis. Br J Occup Ther. 2004;67(2):65–74.
   Google Scholar
• Rousseau-Harrison K, Rochette A, Routheir F, et al. Impact of wheelchair acquisition on social participation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4(5):344–352.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frank AO, Neophytou C, Frank JL, et al. Electric-powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOCs): users’ views of influence on family, friends and carers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(5):327–338.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frank A, De Souza L, Frank J, et al. The pain experience of powered wheelchair users. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(9):770–778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beattie S, Cornick C. Wheelchair technology as a profession. 4th IET Semin. Appropr Healthc Technol Dev Ctries. 2006. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1049/ic.2006.0659
   Google Scholar
• Borg J, Larsson S, Ostergren P, et al. Assistive technology use and human rights enjoyment: a cross sectional study in Bangladesh. BMC Int Heal Hum Rights. 2012;12:12–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moser I. Disability and the promise of technology – technology, subjectivity and embodiment within the order of the normal. Information Commun Soc. 2006;9(3):373–385.
   Google Scholar
• Wright C, Casey J, Porter-Armstrong A. Establishing best practice in seating assessment for children with physical disabilities using qualitative methodologies. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(1):34–47.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Edmonds P, Vivat B, Burman R, et al. Loss and change: experiences of people severely affected by multiple sclerosis. Palliat Med. 2007;21(2):101–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zitzelsberger H. (In)visibility: accounts of embodiment of women with physical disabilities and differences. Disabil Soc. 2005;20:389–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLachlan M, McVeigh J, Cooke M, et al. Intersections between systems thinking and market shaping for assistive technology: The SMART (systems-market for sssistive and related technologies) thinking matrix. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2627.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kylberg M, Löfqvist C, Tomsone S, et al. A European perspective on the service delivery systems for assistive technology – differences and similarities between Latvia and Sweden. J Cross Cult Gerontol. 2015;30(1):51–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durocher E, Wang RH, Bickenbach J, et al. “Just access” questions of equity in access and funding for assistive technology. Ethics Behav. 2017;29(3):172–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray N, Noyes J, Edwards RT, et al. Wheelchair interventions, services and provision for disabled children: a mixed-method systematic review and conceptual framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batavia M. The wheelchair evaluation handbook. 2nd ed. Boston: Jones and Bartlett; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Farley R, Clark J, Davidson C, et al. What is the evidence for effective postural management?. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2003;10(10):449–455.
   Google Scholar
• Souza A, Kelleher A, Cooper R, et al. Multiple sclerosis and mobility-related assistive technology: systematic review of literature. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(3):213–223.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Richardson M, Frank AO. Electric powered wheelchairs for those with muscular dystrophy: problems of posture, pain and deformity. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4(3):181–188.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cox D. Wheelchair needs for children and young people: a review. Br J Occup Ther. 2003;66(5):219–223.
   Google Scholar
• Feldner H, Logan S, Galloway J. Why the time is right for a radical paradigm shift in early powered mobility: the role of powered mobility technology devices, policy and stakeholders. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(2):89–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best K, Routhier F, Miller W. A description of manual wheelchair skills training: current practices in Canadian rehabilitation centers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(5):393–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tu C, Liu L, Wang W, et al. Effectiveness and safety of wheelchair skills training program in improving the wheelchair skills capacity: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(12):1573–1582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greer N, Brasure M, Wilt TJ. Wheeled mobility (wheelchair) service delivery: scope of the evidence. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(2):141–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toro M, Worobey L, Boninger M, et al. Type and frequency of reported wheelchair repairs and related adverse consequences among people with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(10):1753–1760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Health Service Executive. Medical Devices/Equipment Management Policy [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2020 May 13]. Available from: https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/publications/corporate/medicaldevicesequipment.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Shore S. The long-term impact of wheelchair delivery on the lives of people with disabilities in three countries of the world. African J Disabil. 2017;6:1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen R, Tresse S, Gunnarsson RK. Fewer accidents and better maintenance with active wheelchair check-ups: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18(6):631–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLachlan M, Banes D, Bell D, et al. Assistive technology policy: a position paper from the first global research, innovation, and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):454–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service. Assistive Technology in Norway – a part of a larger system: Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service. 2016 [cited 2020 May 13]. Available at: https://www.nav.no/en/home/about-nav/publications/_/attachment/download/7b119b1c-fe72-488a-a1ef-be424e72faff:c52b8c6ee759299749538a6fd0554d1efa695abf/assistive-technology-in-norway-170217v2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nordic Cooperation on Disability Issues. Provision of assistive technology in the Nordic countries. 2007 [cited 2020 May 13]. Available at; http://sid.usal.es/idocs/F8/FDO20694/provisionassistivetechnology.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Vincent C. Towards the development of a policy of recycling assistive technolgy for people living with a disability. Br J Occup Ther. 2000;63(1):35–43.
   Google Scholar
• Gowran RJ, Murray E, Sund T. Sustainable wheelchair provision. Assist technol Res Ser. 2011;29:1241–1250.
   Google Scholar
• Tebbutt E, Brodmann R, Borg J, et al. Assistive products and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Glob Heal. 2016;12:1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis AN, Cooper RA, Seelman KD, et al. Assistive technology in rehabilitation: improving impact through policy. Rehab Res Pol Educ. 2012;26(1):19–32.
   Google Scholar
• Sciubba J. Securing rights in the twenty-first century: a comparison of the disability and older persons’ rights conventions. J Hum rights. 2016;25:553–549.
   Google Scholar
• Farnworth L. Time use and disability. In: Molineux M, editor. Occupation for occupational therapists. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2004.
   Google Scholar