Return to work in people with acquired brain injury: association with observed ability to use everyday technology

References

• Reistetter TA, Abreu BC. Appraising evidence on community integration following brain injury: a systematic review. Occup Ther Int. 2005;12:196–217.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cicerone KD. Participation as an outcome of traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2004;19:494–501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sander AM, Clark A, Pappadis MR. What is community integration anyway? Defining meaning following traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2010;25:121–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shames J, Treger I, Ring H, et al. Return to work following traumatic brain injury: trends and challenges. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:1387–1395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treger I, Shames J, Giaquinto S, et al. Return to work in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:1397–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Velzen J, Van Bennekom C, Edelaar M, et al. How many people return to work after acquired brain injury? A systematic review. Brain Injury. 2009;23:473–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong D, Scherer MJ, Rodger SR. Assisitve technology in the workplace. St. Louis: Elseiver; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Gamble MJ, Dowler DL, Orslene LE. Assistive technology: choosing the right tool for the right job. J Vocat Rehabil. 2006;24:73–80.
   Google Scholar
• Sauer AL, Parks A, Heyn PC. Assistive technology effects on the employment outcomes for people with cognitive disabilities: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5:377–391.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nygard L, Starkhammar S. The use of everyday technology by people with dementia living alone: mapping out the difficulties. Aging Mental Health. 2007;11:144–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emiliani PL. Assistive technology (AT) versus mainstream technology (MST): the research perspective. Technol Disabil. 2006;18:19–29.
   Google Scholar
• Lange M, Smith R. Technology and occupation: contemporary viewpoints. The future of electronic aids to daily living. Am J Occup Ther. 2002;56:107–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassberg A-C, Prellwitz M, Larsson-Lund M. The challenge of everyday technology in the workplace for persons with acquired brain injury. Scand J Occup Ther. 2013;20:272–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson-Lund M, Lovgren Engstrom AL, Lexell J. Response actions to difficulties in using everyday technology after acquired brain injury. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012;19:164–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linden A, Lexell J, Larsson-Lund M. Perceived difficulties using everyday technology after acquired brain injury: influence on activity and participation. Scand J Occup Ther. 2010;17:267–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lövgren Engström A-L, Lexell J, Larsson-Lund M. Difficulties in using everyday technology after an acquired brain injury: a qualitative analysis. Scand J Occup Ther. 2010;17:233–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fallahpour M, Nygard L, Kottorp A, et al. Perceived difficulties in everyday technology use in people with acquired brain injury: comparison to controls. JRM. 2014;46:635–641.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donker-Cools BH, Wind H, Frings-Dresen MH. Prognostic factors of return to work after traumatic or non-traumatic acquired brain injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38:733–741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saltychev M, Eskola M, Tenovuo O, et al. Return to work after traumatic brain injury: systematic review. Brain Injury. 2013:27:1516–1527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scaratti C, Leonardi M, Sattin D, et al. Work-related difficulties in patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review on predictors and associated factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2016. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2016.1162854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulliksen J, Lantz A, Walldius Å, et al. Arbetsmiljöverket. Digital arbetsmiljö. [The digital work environment]. Stockholm: Arbetsmiljöverket; 2015. p. 17. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson T, Classon E, Rönnberg J. Arbetsmiljöverket. Den hjärnvänliga arbetsplatsen- kognition, kognitiva funktionsnedsättningar och arbetsmiljö. [The brain friendly workplace-cognition, cognitive impairments and work environment]. Stockholm: Arbetsmiljöverket; 2014. p. 2. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Kassberg A-C, Malinowsky C, Jacobsson L, et al. Ability to manage everyday technology after acquired brain injury. Brain Injury. 2013;27:1583–1588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Joode E, Proot I, Slegers K, et al. The use of standard calendar software by individuals with acquired brain injury and cognitive complaints: a mixed methods study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;7:389–398.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Joode E, van Heugten C, Verhey F, et al. Efficacy and usability of assistive technology for patients with cognitive deficits: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24:701–714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald A, Haslam C, Yates P, et al. Google calendar: a new memory aid to compensate for prospective memory deficits following acquired brain injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2011;21:784–807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson-Lund M, Nygard L, Kottorp A. Perceived difficulty in the use of everyday technology in people with acquired brain injury with a special focus on work. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1618–1625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abreu BC, Seale G, Scheibel RS, et al. Levels of self-awareness after acute brain injury: how patients' and rehabilitation specialists' perceptions compare. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:49–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart T, Sherer M, Whyte J, et al. Awareness of behavioral, cognitive, and physical deficits in acute traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:1450–1456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherer M, Hart T, Nick TG, et al. Early impaired self-awareness after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:168–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Nygard L, Kottorp A. Psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of the ability to manage technology in everyday life. Scand J Occup Ther. 2011;18:26–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygård L. (research version of manual). Användarmanual för META. Svårigheter i teknologi användning. [Manual for META. Skills in using technology]. Stockholm: Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet; 2006. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Kottorp A, Nygard L. Development of a sh Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Occupational Therapy ort-form assessment for detection of subtle activity limitations: can use of everyday technology distinguish between MCI and Alzheimer's disease? Expert Rev Neurotherapeut. 2011;11:647–655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygård L. Manual to the revised questionnaire about everyday technology in home and society: Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ II) & Short ETUQ (S-ETUQ). Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Occupational Therapy; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg L, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ) – psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of competence in technology use. OTJR: Occup Particip Health. 2009;29:52–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ejlersen Waehrens E, Fisher AG. Developing linear ADL ability measures based on the ADL taxonomy: a Rasch analysis. Scand J Occup Ther. 2008;23:1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Waehrens Ejlersen E. Measuring quality of occupational performance based on self-report and observation: development and validation of instruments to evaluate ADL task performance [dissertation]. Umeå: Department of Occupational Therapy, Umeå University; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Piercy M, Carter J, Mant J, et al. Inter-rater reliability of the Frenchay activities index in patients with stroke and their careers. Clin Rehabil. 2000;14:433–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. FACETS: many-faceted Rasch measurement computer program (version 3.61). Chicago: MESA; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Winsteps-Rasch Measurement Computer Program (version 3.75.1). Chicago: Chicago, Winsteps; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Larsson-Lund M. The association between perceived and observed ability to use everyday technology in people of working age with ABI. Scand J Occup Ther. 2014;21:465–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassberg A-C, Prellwitz M, Malinowsky C, et al. Interventions aimed at improving the ability to use everyday technology in work after brain injury. Scand J Occup Ther. 2016;23:147–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudak AM, Caesar RR, Frol AB, et al. Functional outcome scales in traumatic brain injury: a comparison of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (Extended) and the Functional Status Examination. J Neuro Trauma. 2005;22:1319–1326.
   Google Scholar