“You have to argue the right way”: user involvement in the service delivery process for assistive activity technology

References

• Halvorsen R, Hvinden B, Brown JB, et al. Changing opportunities for active citizenship. In Halvorsen R, Hvinden B, Brown JB, Biggeri M, Tøssebro J, Waldschmidt A, editors. Understanding the lived experiences of persons with disabilities in nine countries: active citizenship and disability in Europe. New York (NY): Routledge; 2017. p. 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• NAV [Internet]. Oslo: Arbeids- og velferdsforvaltningen c2006–2019. Rundskriv til § 10-7 bokstav A - Aktivitetshjelpemidler til personer over 26 år [Circular to § 10-7 letter A: assistive activity technology for persons over 26 years of age]; 2014 June 2 [cited 2019 Sep 2] Norwegian. Available from: https://lovdata.no/nav/forskrift/2014-06-25-865/%C2%A77#§7
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson Ranada Å, Lidström H. Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process: a systematic review. Assist Technol. 2019;31(2):82–97.
   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(3):225–242.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lenker JA, Harris F, Taugher M, et al. Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(5):373–380.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ravneberg B, SöDerström S. Disability, society and assistive technology. New York (NY): Taylor & Francis; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen H, Söderström S, Kermit PS. “The fact that I can be in front of others, I am used to being a bit behind”: how assistive activity technology affects participation in everyday life. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;1–9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1642391
   Google Scholar
• Gjessing B, Jahnsen RB, Strand LI, et al. Adaptation for participation! Children’s experiences with use of assistive devices in activities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(8):803–808.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjelle KM, Vik K. The ups and downs of social participation: experiences of wheelchair users in Norway. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(25–26):2479–2489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt Å, Christensen A, Grünberger 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
• Steel EJ, Gelderblom GJ, de Witte LP. The role of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health and quality criteria for improving assistive technology service delivery in Europe. Am J Phys Medicine Rehabil. 2012;91(13):55–61.
   Google Scholar
• Borg J, Larsson S, Östergren P-O, 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
• Anderson K, Balandin S, Stancliffe R. Australian parents’ experiences of speech generating device (SGD) service delivery. Dev Neurorehabil. 2014;17(2):75–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammel J, Southall K, Jutai J, et al. Evaluating use and outcomes of mobility technology: a multiple stakeholder analysis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(4):294–304.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Steel EJ, Layton NA, Foster MM, et al. Challenges of user-centred assistive technology provision in Australia: shopping without a prescription. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(3):235–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin Ginis KA, Ma JK, Latimer-Cheung AE, et al. A systematic review of review articles addressing factors related to physical activity participation among children and adults with physical disabilities. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(4):478–494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borg J, Larsson S, Östergren PO. The right to assistive technology: for whom, for what, and by whom? Disabil Soc. 2011;26(2):151–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergem S. Knowledge among important actors in the field of adaptive equipment for young people with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15:109–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg R, Blomquist U-B, Richter A, et al. The service delivery system for assistive technology in Sweden: current situation and trends. TAD. 2015;26(4):191–197.
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Borsci S. Providing assistive technology in Italy: the perceived delivery process quality as affecting abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(1):22–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Assistive technology selection to outcome assessment:the benefit of having a service delivery protocol. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(8):762–763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matching Person and Technology. Assessment process. [cited 2020 Feb 24]. Available from https://sites.google.com/view/matchingpersontechnology/assessment-process.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Technology adoption, acceptance, satisfaction and benefit: integrating various assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(1):1–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federici S, Corradi F, Meloni F, et al. A person-centred assistive technology service delivery model: a framework for device selection and assignment. Life Span Disabil. 2014;17(2):175–198.
   Google Scholar
• Arbeidsdepartementet. Aktiv deltakelse, likeverd og inkludering - et helhetlig hjelpemiddeltilbud [Active participation, equality and inclusion: a comprehensive system for assistive technology]. Oslo: Arbeidsdepartementet; 2010. Norwegian.
   Google Scholar
• Arbeids- og sosialdepartementet. En mer effektiv og fremtidsrettet hjelpemiddelformidling: for økt deltakelse og mestring [A more effective and forward-looking allocation of assistive technology: for increased participation and coping]. Oslo: Arbeids- og sosialdepartementet; 2017. Norwegian.
   Google Scholar
• Andreassen TA. Brukermedvirkning i helsetjenesten. Arbeid i brukerutvalg og andre medvirkningsprosesser [User involvement in health services: work in user committees and other collaborative processes]. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk; 2005. Norwegian.
   Google Scholar
• Rappana Olsen B. Om å vite best… sammen - brukermedvirkning i helse- og sosialsektoren [About knowing the best … together: user participation in health and social sector]. In: Stamsø M, editor. Velferdsstaten i endring. Om norsk helse- og sosialpolitikk [The welfare state in change: about Norwegian health and social policy]. 3rd ed. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag; 2017. p. 144–176. Norwegian.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich R, Mathiassen N-E, Hoogerwerf E-J, et al. Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: an AAATE/EASTIN position paper. TAD. 2013;25(3):127–146.
   Google Scholar
• Rønning R, Solheim LJ. Hjelp på egne premisser? Om brukermedvirkning i velferdssektoren [Help on your own premises? User involvement in the welfare sector]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; 1998. Norwegian.
   Google Scholar
• Humerfelt K, Willumsen E. Begrepene brukermedvirkning og brukerperspektiv: Honnørord med lavt presisjonsnivå [The terms user interaction and user perspective: words with low precision level]. In: Willumsen E, editor. Brukernes medvirkning! Kvalitet og legitimitet i velferdstjenestene [User involvement! Quality and legitimacy in welfare services]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; 2005. p. 15–33. Norwegian.
   Google Scholar
• Jenssen AG. Brukermedvirkning i sosialtjenesten: en studie av sosialarbeidernes perspektiv [User involvement in social services: a study of the social workers’ perspective] [dissertation]. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology; 2009. Norwegian.
   Google Scholar
• Tjora AH. Qualitative research as stepwise-deductive induction. Abingdon: Routledge; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Alvesson M, Schiöldberg K. Tolkning og reflection. Vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metod [Interpretation and reflection. Science philosophy and qualitative method]. 2nd ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB; 2008. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles (CA): Sage; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Malterud K. Kvalitative metoder i medisinsk forskning [Qualitative methods in medical research]. 2nd ed. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; 2003. Norwegian.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Glueckauf R. Assessing the benefits of assistive technologies for activities and participation. Rehabil Psychol. 2005;50(2):132–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pape T-B, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(1–3):5–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Craddock G, Mackeogh T. The relationship of personal factors and subjective well-being to the use of assistive technology devices. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(10):811–817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravneberg B. Identity politics by design: users, markets and the public service provision for assistive technology in Norway. Scand J Disabil Res. 2009;11(2):101–115.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Los Angeles (CA): Sage; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Saldaña J. 2013. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2nd ed. Los Angeles (CA): Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich R, Besio S. Being informed, demanding and responsible consumers of assistive technology: an educational issue. Disabil Rehabil Psychol. 2002;24(1–3):152–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer S, Elsaesser L-J, Scherer M, et al. Promoting a standard for assistive technology service delivery. TAD. 2014;26(1):39–48.
   Google Scholar
• Borg J, Östergren P-O. Users’ perspectives on the provision of assistive technologies in Bangladesh: awareness, providers, costs and barriers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(4):301–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ripat J, Woodgate R. The intersection of culture, disability and assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(2):87–96.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gibson BE, Carnevale FA, King G. “This is my way”: reimagining disability, in/dependence and interconnectedness of persons and assistive technologies. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(22):1894–1899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sørensen KH. Domestication: the enactment of technology. In: Thomas B, Hartmann M, Punie Y, Ward K, editors. Domestication of media and technology. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2006. p. 40–61.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disabil Rehabil. 1996;18(9):439–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar