Stakeholder perspectives on research and development priorities for mobility assistive-technology: a literature review

References

• WHO, World Report on Disability 2011. 2011. [Online]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70670/WHO_NMH_VIP_11.01_eng.pdf?sequence=1
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Priority assistive products list: improving access to assistive technology for everyone, everywhere. Gate Initiat. 2016;1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Borg J, Larsson S, Östergren PO, et al. User involvement in service delivery predicts outcomes of assistive technology use: a cross-sectional study in Bangladesh. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:330.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harniss M, Samant Raja D, Matter R. Assistive technology access and service delivery in resource-limited environments: introduction to a special issue of disability and rehabilitation: assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10:267–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harkins CS, McGarry A, Buis A. Provision of prosthetic and orthotic services in low-income countries: a review of the literature. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013;37:353–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Layton N, Murphy C, Bell D. From individual innovation to global impact: the global cooperation on assistive technology (GATE) innovation snapshot as a method for sharing and scaling. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13:486–491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Witte L, Steel E, Gupta S, et al. Assistive technology provision: towards an international framework for assuring availability and accessibility of affordable high-quality assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13:467–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borg J, Lindström A, Larsson S. Assistive technology in developing countries: national and international responsibilities to implement the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Lancet. 2009;374:1863–1865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tebbutt E, Brodmann R, Borg J, et al. Assistive products and the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Global Health. 2016;12:1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Paralympic Committee. Official Paralympic sports news and results. Bonn, Germany: International Paralympic Committee; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• International Paralympic Committee. Conference VISTA2013. Bonn, Germany: International Paralympic Committee; 2013. p. 209–210.
   Google Scholar
• Hoenig H, Griffiths P, Ganesh S, et al. The accuracy of new wheelchair users’ predictions about their future wheelchair use. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91:511–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Executive Office of the President: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Report to the president. Independence, technology, and connection in older age. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• A. G. Department of Social Services. National disability insurance scheme. 2015. [Online]. Available from: www.dss.gov.au/disability-and-carers/programmes-services/for-people-with-disability/national-disability-insurance-scheme
   Google Scholar
• Riener R. The Cybathlon promotes the development of assistive technology for people with physical disabilities. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:2–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Mobility Unlimited Challenge. 2019. [Online]. Available from: https://mobilityunlimited.org/
   Google Scholar
• Peterson W. Role of persons with a disability in the design process. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2008;15:87–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5:36–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sugawara AT, Ramos VD, Alfieri FM, et al. Abandonment of assistive products: assessing abandonment levels and factors that impact on it. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins DM, Scherer M, Boccthy DDJ, et al. Consumers perspectives on assistive technology: simplicity, function, appearance and cost. In RESNA annual conference. Arlington (VA): RESNA; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31:236–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cott CA. Client-centered rehabilitation: client perspectives. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:1411–1422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Lane JP. Assessing consumer profiles of ‘ideal’ assistive technologies in ten categories: an integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. Disabil Rehabil. 1997;19:528–535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Survey of needs for assistive and medical devices for older people in six countries of the who western pacific region. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Kyberd PJ, Hill W. Survey of upper limb prosthesis users in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Canada. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35:234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dicianno BE, Joseph J, Eckstein S, et al. The voice of the consumer: a survey of veterans and other users of assistive technology. Mil Med. 2018;183:e518–e525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelleher A, Dicianno BE, Eckstein S, et al. Consumer feedback to steer the future of assistive technology research and development: a pilot study. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2017;23:89–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dicianno BE, Joseph J, Eckstein S, et al. The future of the provision process for mobility assistive technology: a survey of providers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;14:338–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper RA, Boninger ML, Spaeth DM, et al. Engineering better wheelchairs to enhance community participation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2006;14:438–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper RA, Ding D, Grindle GG, et al. Personal mobility and manipulation using robotics, artificial intelligence and advanced control. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2007;13:81–85.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper RA, Koontz AM, Ding D, et al. Manual wheeled mobility – current and future developments from the human engineering research laboratories. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32:2210–2221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davenport RD, Mann W, Lutz B. How older adults make decisions regarding smart technology: an ethnographic approach. Assist Technol. 2012;24:168–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brienza D, Angelo J, Henry K. Consumer participation in identifying research and development priorities for power wheelchair input devices and controllers. Assist Technol. 1995;7:55–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Simpson RC. Smart wheelchairs: a literature review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42:423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang RH, Korotchenko A, Clarke LH, et al. Power mobility with collision avoidance for older adults: user, caregiver, and prescriber perspectives. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50:1287–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews JT, Beach SR, Downs J, et al. Preferences and concerns for quality of life technology among older adults and persons with disabilities: national survey results. Technol Disabil. 2010;22:5–15.
   Google Scholar
• Lane JP, Usiak DJ, Stone VI, et al. The voice of the customer: consumers define the ideal battery charger. Assist Technol. 1997;9:130–139.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wolff J, Parker C, Borisoff J, et al. A survey of stakeholder perspectives on exoskeleton technology. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11(1):169.
   Google Scholar
• Hill D, Holloway CS, Morgado Ramirez DZ, et al. What are user perspectives of exoskeleton technology? A literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33:160–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yakub F, Md. Khudzari AZ, Mori Y. Recent trends for practical rehabilitation robotics, current challenges and the future. Int J Rehabil Res. 2014;37:9–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bapat GM, Sujatha S. Identification and analysis of knee–ankle–foot orthosis design requirements based on a feedback survey of orthosis users in India. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;14:82–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swinnen E, Deliens T, Dewulf E, et al. What is the opinion of patients with multiple sclerosis and their healthcare professionals about lower limb orthoses? A qualitative study using focus group discussions. NeuroRehabilitation. 2018;42:81–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahr J, Schwartz C, Heimbach B, et al. Invasive brain-machine interfaces: a survey of paralyzed patients’ attitudes, knowledge and methods of information retrieval. J Neural Eng. 2015;12:043001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid DT. Critical review of the research literature of seating interventions: a focus on adults with mobility impairments. Assist Technol. 2002;14:118–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprigle S, Cohen L, Davis K. Establishing seating and wheeled mobility research priorities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Reinkensmeyer DJ, Bonato P, Boninger ML, et al. Major trends in mobility technology research and development: overview of the results of the NSF-WTEC European Study. J NeuroEng Rehabil. 2012;9:2–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammell KRW. Spinal cord injury rehabilitation research: patient priorities, current deficiencies and potential directions. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32:1209–1218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collinger JL, Boninger ML, Bruns TM, et al. Functional priorities, assistive technology, and brain-computer interfaces after spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50:145–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jonge D, Layton N, Vicary F, et al. Motiviation and incentive: exploring assistive technology service delivery from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. RESNA annual conference. Arlington (VA): RESNA; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Global priority research agenda for improving access to high-quality affordable assistive technology. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Borg J, Lindström A, Larsson S. Assistive technology in developing countries: a review from the perspective of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35:20–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greer N, Brasure M, Wilt T. Wheeled mobility (wheelchair) service delivery. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Jónasdóttir SK, Polgar JM. Services, systems, and policies affecting mobility device users’ community mobility: a scoping review: services, systemes et politiques influençant la mobilité dans la communauté des utilisateurs d’aides à la mobilité: examen de la portée. Can J Occup Ther. 2018;85:106–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ripat JD, Brown CL, Ethans KD. Barriers to wheelchair use in the winter. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96:1117–1122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crytzer TM, Cooper R, Jerome G, et al. Identifying research needs for wheelchair transfers in the built environment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12:121–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar