Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice

References

• Bickenbach JE. Disability human rights, law, and policy. Handbook of disability studies, GL Albrecht, KD Seelman, M Bury. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA 2001; 565–84
   Google Scholar
• United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development. The United Nations and disabled persons [Online]. UN enable [updated April 2003; cited 12 March 2008]. Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dis50y90.htm.
   Google Scholar
• AR Chapman. Health care reform: A human rights approach. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities [Online], Article 26-Habilitation and Rehabilitation [updated 2006; cited 16 January 2008]. Available at: http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=286.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. Green Paper on Demographic Change. [updated March 2005; cited 12 March 2008]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/news/2005/mar/demog_gp_en.html.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmarcher, MM, Oxley, H, Rusticelli, E. Improved health system performance through better care coordination [Online]. OECD health working paper no. 30 [updated December 2007; cited 12 March 2008]. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/9/39791610.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• MJ Scherer. Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, AM, Hussey, SM. Assistive technologies, principles and practice2nd ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan C, Tewey B, Newman S, Turner T, Jaeger RJ. Estimating research productivity and quality in assistive technology: A bibliometric analysis spanning four decades. IEEE 2004; 12: 422–9
   Google Scholar
• Gitlin LN. Assistive technology in the home and community for older people: Psychological and social considerations. Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation, MJ Scherer. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC 2002; 109–22
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. International Standard ISO 9999: 2007(E) Assistive products for persons with disability – Classification and terminology4th ed. Geneva: ISO Copyright Office; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• 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; 53: 1712–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wielandt, T, Scherer, MJ. Reducing AT abandonment: Proposed principles for AT selection and recommendation [Online]. August 2004 [updated December 2005; cited 27 February 2008]. Available at: http://www.e-bility.com/articles/at_selection.php.
   Google Scholar
• Craddock G. Partnership and assistive technology in Ireland. Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation, MJ Scherer. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC 2002; 253–66
   Google Scholar
• Harris F. Conceptual issues in the measurement of participation among wheeled mobility device users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Techn 2007; 2: 137–48
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoenig H, Giacobbi P, Levy CE. Methodological challenges confronting researchers of wheeled mobility aids and other technologies. Disabil Rehabil Assist Techn 2007; 2: 159–68
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Polit, DF, Beck, CT. Nursing research, principles and methods7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Paquet V. A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol 2003; 15: 1–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker, JA, Jutai, J. Assistive technology outcomes research and clinical practice: What role for ICF? [Online], [updated 2002; cited 17 September 2007]. Available at: www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads/icf_jun02_papers_6A_e.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. [ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (English full version) Online], [updated June 15 2001; cited 3 January 2008]. Available at: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/site/onlinebrowser/icf.cfm.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Jutai J, Fuhrer M, Demers L, DeRuyter F. A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disabil Rehabil Assist Techn 2007; 2: 1–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Glueckauf R. Assessing the benefits of assistive technology for activities and participation. Rehab Psychol 2005; 50: 132–41
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, Cushman L, Scherer JV. Predictors of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27: 1321–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deutsche Vereinigung für Rehabilitation (DVfR). Für eine optimierte Versorgung mit Hilfsmitteln. Eine Expertise der Deutschen Vereinigung für Rehabilitation zu aktuellen Problemen bei der Versorgung mit Hilfsmitteln [Optimizing provision of assistive technology. Expert opinion of the German Society for Rehabilitation, DVfR, on current issues in the provision of technical aids and assistive devices]. Rehabil (Stuttg) 2007;46:175–86.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Kleijn-de Vrankrijker, MW, Valk, SA. ISO 9999 submission to the WHO-FIC [Online], [cited 5 June 2008]. Available at: www.rivm.nl/who-fic/Annuals/cologne33.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• DePoy, E, Gitlin, LN. Introduction to research. Understanding and applying multiple strategies3rd ed. St Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Verza R, Lopes Carvalho ML, Battaglia MA, Messmer Uccelli M. An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Multiple Sclerosis 2006; 12: 88–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copley J, Ziviani J. Use of a team-based approach to assistive technology assessment and planning for children with multiple disabilities: A pilot study. Assist Technol 2007; 19: 109–25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ripat J, Booth A. Characteristics of assistive technology service delivery models: stakeholder perspectives and preferences. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27: 1461–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer, MJ. Matching person & technology: A series of assessments for evaluating predispositions to and outcomes of technology use in rehabilitation, education, the workplace & other settingsRev. ed. Webster, NY: Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Assessing the benefits of using assistive technologies and other supports for thinking, remembering and learning. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27: 731–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, DeRuyter F. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 1243–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol Disabil 2002; 14: 125–31
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Scherer MJ, Micangeli A, Lombardo C, Olivetti Belardinelli M. A cross-cultural analysis between disability self-evaluation and individual predisposition to use assistive technology. Assistive technology: Shaping the future, GM Craddock, LP McCormack, RB Reilly, HTP Knops. ISO Press, Amsterdam 2003; 941–6
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Matching assistive technology and child: A process and series of assessments for selecting and evaluating technologies used by infants & young children. Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Webster, NY 1997
   Google Scholar
• Ivanoff SD, Iwarsson S, Sonn U. Occupational therapy research on assistive technology and physical environmental issues: A literature review. Can J Occup Ther 2006; 73: 109–19
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roelands M, Van Oost P, Depoorter AM, Buysse A. A social-cognitive model to predict the use of assistive devices for mobility and self-care in elderly people. Gerontologist 2002; 42: 39–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubert M. Die Praxis der Bedarfsermittlung zur Hilfsmittelversorgung in den Niederlanden [The practice of needs assessment for the supply of technical aids in the Netherlands]. Rehabil (Stuttg) 2003; 42: 52–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jutai J, Day H. Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technol Disabil 2002; 14: 107–11
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weis-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (Quest 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technol Disabil 2002; 14: 101–5
   Google Scholar
• Wessels R, de Witte L, Andrich R, Ferrario M, Persson J, Oberg B, et al. IPPA, a user-centred approach to assess effectiveness of assistive technology provision. Technol Disabil 2000; 13: 105–15
   Google Scholar
• Law, M, Baptiste, S, Carswell, A, McColl, MA, Polatajko, H, Pollock, N. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure2nd ed. Rev. Ottawa: CAOT Publications ACE; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, E, Stanton, S, Law, M, Polatajko, M, Baptiste, S, Thompson-Franson, T, , et al. Enabling occupation: An occupational therapy perspectiveRev. ed. Ottawa: CAOT Publications ACE; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, RO, Jansen, CJ, Seitz, J, Longenecker Rust, K. ATOMS Project Technical Report: The ICF in the context of assistive technology (AT) interventions and outcome [Online], [updated August 2006; cited 21 November 2007]. Available at: http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/archive/icf.html.
   Google Scholar
• Rust KL, Smith RO. Assistive technology in the measurement of rehabilitation and health outcomes: A review and analysis of instruments. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 84: 780–96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Üstün B, Stucki G. ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med 2005; 37: 212–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer, MJ. Enhancing assistive technology selection and use: Connecting the ICF and ISO9999. Newsletter on the WHO-11 FIC, 2(1), 2004 [Online] [updated March 2008; cited 21 November 2007]. Available at: http://www.rivm.nl/who-fic/newsletter/newsletter2004-1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Wade DT, Halligan PW. Do biomedical models of illness make for good healthcare systems?. BMJ 2004; 329: 1398–401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoijtink, EJ, Westerhuis, E. Eindrapportage. Relatie Cliq en GPH [Final report, relationship Cliq and GPH] [Online] [updated May 2006; cited 5 March 2008]. Available at: www.nictiz.nl/?mid=71&pg=52&doc=66&download&ext=pdf.
   Google Scholar
• MURINET. European project, [Online] [cited 3 January 2008]. Available from: http://www.headnetgroup.it/murinet.asp.
   Google Scholar