Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process—A systematic review

References

• Adya, M., Samant, D., Scherer, M., Killeen, M., & Morris, M. (2012). Assistive/rehabilitation technology, disability, and service delivery models. Cognitive Processing, 13(S1), S75–S78. doi:10.1007/s10339-012-0466-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, K., Balandin, S., & Stancliffe, R. (2014). Australian parents’ experiences of speech generating device (SGD) service delivery. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 17(2), 75–83. doi:10.3109/17518423.2013.857735
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anttila, H., Samuelsson, K., Salminen, A.-L., & Brandt, Å. (2012). Quality of evidence of assistive technology interventions for people with disability: An overview of systematic reviews. Technology and Disability, 24(1), 9–48.
   Google Scholar
• Arthanat, S., Simmons, C. D., & Favreau, M. (2012). Exploring occupational justice in consumer perspectives on assistive technology. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(5), 309–319. doi:10.2182/CJOT.2012.79.5.7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe (AAATE). (2012). Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe (Position paper). Milano, Italy: European Assistive Technology Information Network.
   Google Scholar
• Aveyard, H. (2010). Doing a literarure review in health and social care. A practical guide (2nd ed.). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, R. L., Parette, Jr., H. P., Stoner, J. B., Angell, M. E., & Carroll, K. (2006). Family members’ perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication device use. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37(1), 50–60. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2006/006)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, N. (2006). Analyzing evidence for practice. In G. Kielhofner (Ed.), Research in occupational therapy: Methods of inquiry for enhancing practice (pp. 662–684). Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis Company.
   Google Scholar
• Bartfai, A., & Boman, I.-L. (2014). A multiprofessional client-centered guide to implementing assistive technology for clients with cognitive impairment. Technology and Disability, 26, 11–21.
   Google Scholar
• Batavia, A. I., & Hammer, G. S. (1990). Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 27(4), 425–436. doi:10.1682/JRRD.1990.10.0425
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Benedict, R., Lee, J., Marrujo, S., & Farel, A. (1999). Assistive devices as an early childhood intervention: Evaluating outcomes. Technology and Disability, 11(1–2), 79.
   Google Scholar
• Bergström, A. L., & Samuelsson, K. (2006). Evaluation of manual wheelchairs by individuals with spinal cord injuries. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1(3), 175–182. doi:10.1080/17483100600573230
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bernd, T., van der Pijl, D., & de Witte, L. P. (2009). Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 16(3), 146–158. doi:10.1080/11038120802449362
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blomquist, U.-B., & Jacobsson, D. (2011). Förskrivningsprocessen fritt val av hjälpmedel egenansvar—Tre olika vägar till hjälpmedel [The service delivery process of assistive technology—Three ways to get an assistive technology device]. Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Borg, J., Larsson, S., Ostergren, P. O., Rahman, A. S., Bari, N., & Khan, A. H. (2012). User involvement in service delivery predicts outcomes of assistive technology use: A cross-sectional study in Bangladesh. BMC Health Services Research, 12, 330. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-330
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borg, J., & Östergren, P.-O. (2015). Users’ perspectives on the provision of assistive technologies in Bangladesh: Awareness, providers, costs and barriers. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 10(4), 301–308. doi:10.3109/17483107.2014.974221
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt, Å., Christensen, A., & Grünberger, P. (2015). How to accomplish the assistive technology service delivery process for adults in order to obtain the best outcomes—A literature review. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 217, 469–477.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brandt, Å., Samuelsson, K., Töytäri, O., & Salminen, A.-L. (2011). 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, 6(3), 189–206. doi:10.3109/17483107.2010.532286
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown-Triolo, D. (2003). Understanding the person behind the technology. In M. Scherer (Ed.), Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, S. C., & Chan, A. P. (2006). The validity and applicability of the Chinese version of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology for people with spinal cord injury. Assistive Technology, 18(1), 25–33. doi:10.1080/10400435.2006.10131904
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C. L., Teng, Y. L., Lou, S. Z., Lin, C. H., Chen, F. F., & Yeung, K. T. (2014). User satisfaction with orthotic devices and service in Taiwan. PLoS One, 9(10), 110661.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copley, J., & Ziviani, J. (2007). Use of a team-based approach to assistive technology assessment and planning for children with multiple disabilities: A pilot study. Assistive Technology, 19(3), 109–125. doi:10.1080/10400435.2007.10131869
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan, D. M., & Turner-Smith, A. R. (1999). The user’s perspective on the provision of electronic assistive technology: Equipped for life? British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(1), 2. doi:10.1177/030802269906200102
   Google Scholar
• Craddock, G., & McCormack, L. (2002). Delivering an AT service: A client-focused, social and participatory service delivery model in assistive technology in Ireland. Disability & Rehabilitation, 24(1/3), 160–170. doi:10.1080/09638280110063869
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, R., Blomquist, U.-B., Richter, A., & Lampal, A. (2014). The service delivery system for assistive technology in Sweden: Current situation and trends. Technology and Disability, 26, 191–197.
   Google Scholar
• de Groot, S., Post, M. W., Bongers-Janssen, H. M., Bloemen-Vrencken, J. H., & van der Woude, L. H. (2011). Is manual wheelchair satisfaction related to active lifestyle and participation in people with a spinal cord injury? Spinal Cord, 49(4), 560–565. doi:10.1038/sc.2010.150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jonge, D., & Rodger, S. (2006). Consumer-identified barriers and strategies for optimizing technology use in the workplace. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1(1–2), 79–88. doi:10.1080/09638280500167324
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Jonge, D., Rodger, S., & Fitzgibbon, H. (2001). Putting technology to work: Users’ perspective on integrating assistive technology into the workplace. Work, 16(2), 77.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2002). The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 101.
   Google Scholar
• Derosier, R., & Farber, R. S. (2005). Speech recognition software as an assistive device: A pilot study of user satisfaction and psychosocial impact. Work, 25(2), 125–134.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dijcks, B. P., Wessels, R. D., de Vlieger, S. L., & Post, M. W. (2006). KWAZO, a new instrument to assess the quality of service delivery in assistive technology provision. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28(15), 909–914. doi:10.1080/09638280500301527
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan, M., & Henderson, G. (2014). Patient and equipment profile for wheelchair seating clinic provision. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9(2), 373–380.
   Google Scholar
• Federici, S., Scherer, M., & Borci, S. (2014). An ideal model of an assistive technology assessment and delivery process. Technology and Disability, 26, 27–38.
   Google Scholar
• Friederich, A., Bernd, T., & de Witte, L. (2010). Methods for the selection of assistive technology in neurological rehabilitation practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 17(4), 308–318. doi:10.3109/11038120903377082
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodacre, L., & Turner, G. (2005). An investigation of the effectiveness of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology via a postal survey. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(2), 93. doi:10.1177/030802260506800206
   Google Scholar
• Gramstad, A., Storli, S. L., & Hamran, T. (2013). “Do I need it? Do I really need it?” Elderly peoples experiences of unmet assistive technology device needs. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8(4), 287–293. doi:10.3109/17483107.2012.699993
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammel, J., Southall, K., Jutai, J., Finlayson, M., Kashindi, G., & Fok, D. (2013). Evaluating use and outcomes of mobility technology: A multiple stakeholder analysis. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8(4), 294–304. doi:10.3109/17483107.2012.735745
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hedberg Kristensson, E., Dahlin, S., & Iwarsson, S. (2006). Participation in the prescription process of mobility devices: Experiences among older patients. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(4), 169–176. doi:10.1177/030802260606900404
   Google Scholar
• Hedberg Kristensson, E., & Iwarsson, S. (2003). Documentation quality in occupational therapy patient records: Focusing on the technical aid prescription process. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 10(2), 72–80. doi:10.1080/11038120310009434
   Google Scholar
• International Standards Organization (ISO). (2016). Assistive products for persons with disability—Classification and terminology (Vol. 9999:2016). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
   Google Scholar
• Jedeloo, S., de Witte, L. P., Linssen, B. A. J., & Schrijvers, A. J. P. (2002). Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(10), 550–557. doi:10.1080/09638280110108292
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karmarkar, A. M., Collins, D. M., Kelleher, A., & Cooper, R. A. (2009). Satisfaction related to wheelchair use in older adults in both nursing homes and community dwelling. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 4(5), 337–343. doi:10.1080/17483100903038543
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kittel, A., Di, M. A., & Stewart, H. (2002). Factors influencing the decision to abandon manual wheelchairs for three individuals with a spinal cord injury. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1–3), 106–114. doi:10.1080/09638280110066785
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krantz, O., Persson, D., Lindgren, B., & Bolin, K. (2011). Prescribers’ experience of active wheelchair provisioning in Sweden: Analysis of a postal questionnaire. Technology and Disability, 23(4), 191.
   Google Scholar
• Lenker, J., Harris, F., Taugher, M., & Smith, R. (2013). Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8(5), 373–380. doi:10.3109/17483107.2012.749429
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lenker, J., & Paquet, V. (2003). A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology, 15, 1–15. doi:10.1080/10400435.2003.10131885
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker, J., Shoemaker, L., Fuhrer, M., Jutai, J., Demers, L., Hoh Tan, C., & DeRuyter, F. (2012). Classification of assistive technology services: Implications for outcomes research. Technology and Disability, 24, 59–70.
   Google Scholar
• Lidström, H., Almqvist, L., & Hemmingsson, H. (2012). Computer-based assistive technology device for use by children with physical disabilities: A cross-sectional study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 7(4), 287–293. doi:10.3109/17483107.2011.635332
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lindsay, S. (2010). Perceptions of health care workers prescribing augmentative and alternative communication devices to children. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 5(3), 209–222. doi:10.3109/17483101003718195
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mao, H. F., Chen, W. Y., Yao, G., Huang, S. L., Lin, C. C., & Huang, W. N. (2010). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): The development of the Taiwanese version. Clinical Rehabilitation, 24(5), 412–421. doi:10.1177/0269215509347438
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, J. K., Martin, L. G., Stumbo, N. J., & Morrill, J. H. (2011). The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 6(3), 225–242. doi:10.3109/17483107.2010.522685
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maximo, T., & Clift, L. (2015). Assessing service delivery systems for assistive technology in Brazil using HEART study quality indicators. Technology and Disability, 27, 161–170. doi:10.3233/TAD-160438
   Google Scholar
• McClure, L. A., Boninger, M. L., Oyster, M. L., Williams, S., Houlihan, B., Lieberman, J. A., & Cooper, R. A. (2009). Wheelchair repairs, breakdown, and adverse consequences for people with traumatic spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90(12), 2034–2038. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.07.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNaughton, D., Rackensperger, T., Benedek-Wood, E., Krezman, C., Williams, M., & Light, J. (2008). “A child needs to be given a chance to succeed”: Parents of individuals who use AAC describe the benefits and challenges of learning AAC technologies. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(1), 43–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–270. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mumford, L., Lam, R., Wright, V., & Chau, T. (2014). An access technology delivery protocol for children with severe and multiple disabilities: A case demonstration. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 17(4), 232–242. doi:10.3109/17518423.2013.776125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murchland, S., Kernot, J., & Parkyn, H. (2011). Children’s satisfaction with assistive technology solutions for schoolwork using the QUEST 2.1: Children’s version. Assistive Technology, 23(3), 162–176. doi:10.1080/10400435.2011.588990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NIH. (2015). Medical subject headings (MeSH®). Retrieved from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/mesh.html
   Google Scholar
• Parker, S., Buckley, W., Truesdell, A., Riggio, M., Collins, M., & Boardman, B. (1990). Barriers to the use of assistive technology with children: A survey. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 84(10), 532–533.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelsson, K., & Wressle, E. (2008). User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: An important element in the rehabilitation process. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30(7), 551–558. doi:10.1080/09638280701355777
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelsson, K., & Wressle, E. (2014). Powered wheelchairs and scooters for outdoor mobility: A pilot study on costs and benefits. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9(4), 330–334. doi:10.3109/17483107.2013.827244
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherer, M., & Craddock, G. (2002). Matching person & technology (MPT) assessment process. Technology and Disability, 14, 125–131.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer, M., Jutai, J., Fuhrer, M. J., Demers, L., & DeRuyter, F. (2007). A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assististive Technlology, 2(1), 1–8. doi:10.1080/17483100600845414
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shone, S. M., Ryan, S., Rigby, P. J., & Jutai, J. W. (2002). Toward a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of electronic aids to daily living: Evaluation of consumer satisfaction. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1–3), 115–125. doi:10.1080/09638280110066794
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R., Quine, S., Anderson, J., & Black, K. (2002). Assistive devices: Self-reported use by older people in Victoria. Australian Health Review, 25(4), 169–177. doi:10.1071/AH020169
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sprigle, S., Lenker, J., & Searcyc, K. (2012). Activities of suppliers and technicians during the provision of complex and standard wheeled mobility devices. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 7(3), 219–225. doi:10.3109/17483107.2011.624251
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Steel, E. J., & de Witte, L. P. (2011). Advances in European assistive technology service delivery and recommendations for further improvement. Technology and Disability, 23(3), 131.
   Google Scholar
• Steel, E. J., Gelderblom, G. J., & de Witte, L. P. (2012). The role of the International classification of functioning, disability, and health and quality criteria for improving assistive technology service delivery in Europe. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 91(13 Suppl 1), S55–S61. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e31823d4ee6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sund, T., Iwarsson, S., Andersen, M. C., & Brandt, A. (2013). Documentation of and satisfaction with the service delivery process of electric powered scooters among adult users in different national contexts. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8(2), 151–160. doi:10.3109/17483107.2012.699584
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tam, E., Mak, A. F. T., Chow, D., Wong, C., Kam, A., Luk, L., & Yuen, P. (2003). A survey on the need and funding for assistive technology devices and services in Hong Kong. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(3), 136–141. doi:10.1177/10442073030140030201
   Google Scholar
• Tomlin, G., & Borgetto, B. (2011). Research pyramid: A new evidence-based practice model for occupational therapy. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(2), 189–196. doi:10.5014/ajot.2011.000828
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Schyndel, R., Furgoch, A., Previl, T., & Martini, R. (2014). The experience of speech recognition software abandonment by adolescents with physical disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9(6), 513–520. doi:10.3109/17483107.2014.883651
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vincent, C., Deaudelin, I., & Hotton, M. (2007). Pilot on evaluating social participation following the use of an assistive technology designed to facilitate face-to-face communication between deaf and hearing persons. Technology and Disability, 19(4), 153.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss-Lambrou, R., Tremblay, C., LeBlanc, R., Lacoste, M., & Dansereau, J. (1999). Wheelchair seating aids: How satisfied are consumers? Assistive Technology, 11(1), 43–53. doi:10.1080/10400435.1999.10131984
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessels, R. D., & de Witte, L. P. (2003). Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(6), 267. doi:10.1080/0963828021000031197
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. (2007). International classification of function, disability and health. Children & youth version (ICF-CY). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Wressle, E., & Samuelsson, K. (2004). User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 11(3), 143–150. doi:10.1080/11038120410020728
   Google Scholar