Older adults’ perspectives on the process of becoming users of assistive technology: a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis

References

• 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;30:51–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization, United States Agency for International Development. Joint position paper on the provision of mobility devices in less resourced settings. Malta: World Health Organization; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Bekendtgørelse af lov om social service [Publication of law on social service], LBK nr 1270 af 24 October 2016. Denmark: Social- og indenrigsministeriet; 2016. Danish.
   Google Scholar
• Socialstyrelsen. Lovgrundlag [Legislative framework] [Internet]. Odense, Denmark: Socialstyrelsen; 2018. [cited 16 January 2018]. Available from: https://socialstyrelsen.dk/tvaergaende-omrader/hjaelpemidler-og-velfaerdsteknologi/om-hjaelpemidler/lovgrundlag [Danish]
   Google Scholar
• Brandt Å. Outcome of rollator and powered wheelchair interventions - user satisfaction and participation [dissertation]. Sweden: Lund University; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Martin JK, Martin LG, Stumbo NJ, et al. The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6:225–242.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Larsson Ranada Å, Lidström H. Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process–a systematic review. Assist Technol. 2017 [Sep 11]; [1–16]. DOI:10.1080/10400435.2017.1367737
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Socialstyrelsen. Kartläggning av vetenskapliga studier kring förskrivningsprocessen [Mapping of scientific studies about the prescription process]. Sverige: Socialstyrelsen; 2015. [Swedish].
   Google Scholar
• Hedberg-Kristensson E, Ivanoff SD, Iwarsson S. Participation in the prescription process of mobility devices: experiences among older patients. Br J Occup Ther. 2006;69:169–176.
   Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Miller WC. The wheelchair procurement process: perspectives of clients and prescribers. Can J Occup Ther. 2008;75:167–175.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freedman VA, Agree EM, Martin LG, et al. Trends in the use of assistive technology and personal care for late-life disability, 1992–2001. Gerontologist. 2006;46:124–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peek ST, Luijkx KG, Rijnaard MD, et al. Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology. 2016;62:226–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skymne C, Dahlin-Ivanoff S, Claesson L, et al. Getting used to assistive devices: ambivalent experiences by frail elderly persons. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012;19:194–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Häggblom-Kronlöf G, Sonn U. Use of assistive devices - a reality full of contradictions in elderly persons’ everyday life. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2:335–345.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ripat J, Verdonck M, Carter RJ. The meaning ascribed to wheeled mobility devices by individuals who use wheelchairs and scooters: a metasynthesis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13:253–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peek ST, Wouters EJ, van Hoof J, et al. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83:235–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yusif S, Soar J, Hafeez-Baig A. Older people, assistive technologies, and the barriers to adoption: a systematic review. Int J Med Inf. 2016;94:112–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt A, Christensen A, Grunberger P. How to accomplish the assistive technology service delivery process for adults in order to obtain the best outcomes - a literature review. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;217:469–477.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gramstad A, Storli SL, Hamran T. “Do I need it? Do I really need it?” Elderly peoples experiences of unmet assistive technology device needs. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8:287–293.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Copolillo AE. Use of mobility devices: the decision-making process of nine African-American older adults. OTJR. 2001;21:185–200.
   Google Scholar
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1–e34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polgar JM. Environment factors: technology. In: Christiansen C, Baum CM, Bass JD, editors. Occupational therapy: performance, participation, and well-being. 4th ed. Thorofare (NJ): SLACK Incorporated; 2015. p. 441–464.
   Google Scholar
• Frandsen TF, Christensen JB, Ølholm AM. Systematisk søgning efter kvalitativ litteratur kan styrkes [Improving qualitative literature systematic searches]. Ugeskr Laeger. 2016;178:2–5. Danish.
   Google Scholar
• Saini M, Shlonsky A. Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. Oxford (NY): Oxford University Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Covidence [Internet]. Melbourne: Covidence; 2017. [cited 28 Aug 2017]. Available from: https://www.covidence.org/
   Google Scholar
• Butler A, Hall H, Copnell B. A guide to writing a qualitative systematic review protocol to enhance evidence-based practice in nursing and health care. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2016;13:241–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, et al. ‘Trying to pin down jelly’-exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP qualitative tjecklist [Internet]. Oxford: CASP; 2017. [cited 28 Aug 2017]. Available from: http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/dded87_25658615020e427da194a325e7773d42.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, et al. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmer L. Qualitative meta-synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. J Adv Nurs. 2006;53:311–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorne S, Jensen L, Kearney MH, et al. Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res. 2004;14:1342–1365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Toward a metasynthesis of qualitative findings on motherhood in HIV-positive women. Res Nurs Health. 2003;26:153–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricoeur P. Interpretation theory: discourse and the surplus of meaning. 6th ed. Fort Worth (TX): Texas Christian University Press; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Dreyer PS, Pedersen BD. Distanciation in Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation: narrations in a study of life experiences of living with chronic illness and home mechanical ventilation. Nurs Inq. 2009;16:64–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen BD. Sygeplejepraksis: sprog & erkendelse [Nursing practice: language and acknowledgement] [dissertation]. Århus: Afdeling for Sygeplejevidenskab, Aarhus Universitet; 1999. Danish.
   Google Scholar
• Ricoeur P. The hermeneutical function of distanciation. Philosophy Today. 1973;17:129–141.
   Google Scholar
• Agerskov H. The living kidney donor: a qualitative study investigating donors’ experiences and considerations during the donation process [dissertation]. Odense: Research Unit of Nursing, University of Southern Denmark; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Pettersson I, Appelros P, Ahlström G. Lifeworld perspectives utilizing assistive devices: individuals, lived experience following a stroke. Can J Occup Ther. 2007;74:15–26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hedberg-Kristensson E, Ivanoff SD, Iwarsson S. Experiences among older persons using mobility devices. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2:15–22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Copolillo A, Collins C, Randall NR, et al. The impact of experience and heuristics on everyday decisions to use mobility devices: the need for control in nine African-American older adults. Physic Occup Ther Geria. 2001;20:57–74.
   Google Scholar
• Gramstad A, Storli SL, Hamran T. Older individuals’ experiences during the assistive technology device service delivery process. Scand J Occup Ther. 2014;21:305–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barker DJ, Reid D, Cott C. Acceptance and meanings of wheelchair use in senior stroke survivors. Am J Occup Ther. 2004;58:221–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindqvist E, Nygard L, Borell L. Significant junctures on the way towards becoming a user of assistive technology in Alzheimer’s disease. Scand J Occup Ther. 2013;20:386–396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southall K, Gagné J, Leroux T. Factors that influence the use of assistance technologies by older adults who have a hearing loss. Int J Audiol. 2006;45:252–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gooberman-Hill R, Ebrahim S. Making decisions about simple interventions: older people’s use of walking aids. Age Ageing. 2007;36:569–573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter EJ, Benson JJ, Matsuda S. Older homebound women: negotiating reliance on a cane or walker. Qual Health Res. 2011;21:534–548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copolillo A, Teitelman JL. Acquisition and integration of low vision assistive devices: understanding the decision-making process of older adults with low vision. Am J Occup Ther. 2005;59:305–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gramstad A, Storli SL, Hamran T. Exploring the meaning of a new assistive technology device for older individuals. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9:493–498.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• May E, Garrett R, Ballantyne A. Being mobile: electric mobility-scooters and their use by older people. Aging Soc. 2010;30:1219–1237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kronlöf GH, Sonn U. Elderly women’s way of relating to assistive devices. Technol Disabil. 1999;10:161–169.
   Google Scholar
• Aminzadeh F, Edwards N. Exploring seniors’ views on the use of assistive devices in fall prevention. Public Health Nurs. 1998;15:297–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed. London: Sage; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Ripat J, Strock A. Users’ perceptions of the impact of electronic aids to daily living throughout the acquisition process. Assist Technol. 2004;16:63–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Hammell KW, Luts A, et al. The power of power wheelchairs: mobility choices of community-dwelling, older adults. Scand J Occup Ther. 2015;22:394–401.
   PubMed 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;7:37–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lund ML, Nygård L. Incorporating or resisting assistive devices: different approaches to achieving a desired occupational self-image. OTJR. 2003;23:67–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hocking C. Function or feelings: factors in abandonment of assistive devices. Technol Disabil. 1999;11:3–11.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. World report on disability. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Raholm M, Eriksson K, Lindholm L. Grasping the essence of the spiritual dimension reflected through the horizon of suffering: an interpretative research synthesis. Aust J Hol Nurs. 2002;9:4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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. Assist Technol. 2013;8:151–160.
   Google Scholar