Parenting with a disability: exploring the satisfaction and efficacy of the PediaLift wheelchair accessible crib

References

• Public Law 105–394. 1998 [cited 2020 Mar 31]. Available from: https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ394/PLAW-105publ394.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kaye HS. 2012. Current demographics of parents with disabilities in the U.S. Berkeley, CA: Through the Looking Glass; [cited 2020 Mar 31]. Available from: http://www.lookingglass.org/pdf/States-Data/TLG-Parents-with-Disabilities-US-Demographics.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. 2016. Parenting with A Disability: Know Your Rights Toolkit; [cited 2020 Mar 31]. Available from: https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/Final%20508_Parenting%20Toolkit_Standard_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Grue L, Lærum KT. Doing Motherhood: some experiences of mothers with physical disabilities. Disabil Soc. 2002;17(6):671–683. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/0968759022000010443
   Google Scholar
• Kirshbaum M, Olkin R. Parents with physical, systemic, or visual disabilities. Sexual Disabil. 2002;20(1):65–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Council on Disability. 2012. Rocking the cradle: ensuring the rights of parents with disabilities and their children. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability.
   Google Scholar
• Powell R. Can parents lose custody simply because they are disabled? ABA GPSolo. 2014;31(2). Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2645347
   Google Scholar
• Jacob J, Kirshbaum M, Preston P. Mothers with physical disabilities caring for young children. J Social Work Disabil Rehabil. 2017;16(2):95–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitra M, Long-Bellil L, Iezzoni L, et al. Pregnancy among women with physical disabilities: unmet needs and recommendations on navigating pregnancy. Disabil Health J. 2016;9(3):457–463. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2015.12.007
   Google Scholar
• Tarasoff LA. Experiences of women with physical disabilities during the perinatal period: a review of the literature and recommendations to improve care. Health Care Women Int. 2015;36(1):88–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuleja C, DeMoss A. Babycare assistive technology. Technol Disabil. 1999;11(1–2):71–78.
   Google Scholar
• Somers MF, Garant A. Addressing the unique mobility requirements of parenting from a wheelchair: case report. Neurology Report. 1993;17(4):11–13.
   Google Scholar
• Wint AJ, Smith DL, Iezzoni LI. Mothers with physical disability: childcare adaptations at home. Am J Occup Ther. 2016;70(6):7006220060p1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser A, Reid D, Boschen KA. Experiences of parents with spinal cord injury. Sex Disabil. 2012;30(2):123–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowley K. Equipment and modifications that enable infant child-care by a mother with C8 tetraplegia: a case report. Disab Rehabil: Assist Technol. 2007;2(1):59–65.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Khasnabis C, Mirza Z, MacLachlan M. Opening the GATE to inclusion for people with disabilities. The Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2229–2230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthanat S, Elsaesser L, Bauer S. A survey of assistive technology service providers in the USA. Disab Rehabil: Assist Technol. 2017;12(8):789–800.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayback D, Hostak R, Leahy JA, et al. Standards for assistive technology funding: what are the right criteria? Assist Technol Outcomes Benefits. 2015;9(1):38–53.
   Google Scholar
• Tam E, Mak A, Chow D, et al. A survey on the need and funding for assistive technology devices and services in hong kong. J Disabil Policy Studies. 2003;14(3):136–141.
   Google Scholar
• LaPlante M, Hendershot G, Moss A. Assistive technology devices and home accessibility features: prevalence, payment, need, and trends. Advance Data. 1997;6(1–2):17–11.
   Google Scholar
• O'Day BL, Corcoran PJ. Assistive technology: problems and policy alternatives. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(10):1165–9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9993(94)90096-5
   Google Scholar
• Lemaire ED. Mobilizing knowledge: the evidence gap for assistive devices. Technol Innovat Management Rev. 2016;6(9):39–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt Å, Alwin J. Assistive technology outcomes research: contributions to evidence-based assistive technology practice. Technol Disab. 2012;24(1):5–7.
   Google Scholar
• Lenker J, Fuhrer M, Jutai J, et al. Treatment theory, intervention specification, and treatment fidelity in assistive technology outcomes research. Assistive Technol. 2010;22(3):129–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Polgar JM. 2015. Cook and Hussey’s assistive technologies: principles and practice. 4th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. 2002. Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health, ICF [cited 2020 Mar 31]. Available from: https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/icfbeginnersguide.pdf?ua=1.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. 1997. Enabling occupation: an occupational therapy perspective. Ottawa: CAOT Publications ACE
   Google Scholar
• Salkind NJ. 2010. Encyclopedia of research design (Vols. 1-0). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Depoy E, Gitlin L. 2015. Introduction to research: understanding and applying multiple strategies. 4th edition. St. Louis: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Lenker J, Harris F, Taugher M, et al. Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol. 2013;8(5):373–380.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schoonenboom J, Johnson R. How to construct a mixed methods research design. Köln Z Soziol. 2017;69(S2):107–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker J, Scherer M, Fuhrer MJ, et al. Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assistive Technol. 2005;17(1):7–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rehabilitation Measures Team and Salgia, S. 2012. Quest User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0; [cited 2020 Mar 31]. Available from: https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/quebec-user-evaluation-satisfaction-assistive-technology.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assistive Technol. 2000;12(2):96–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, et al. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(1–3):21–30. ).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Occupational Therapy Association. Occupational therapy practice framework: domain and process. Am J Occupat Ther. 2014;68(Suppl. 1):S1–S48.
   Google Scholar
• COPM. 2020. About the COPM. [cited 2020 Mar 31]. Available from: http://www.thecopm.ca/about/.
   Google Scholar
• Petty L, Mcarthur L, Treviranus J. Clinical report: use of the canadian occupational performance measure in vision technology. Can J Occup Ther. 2005;72(5):309–312.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kinney A, Goodwin D, Gitlow L. Measuring assistive technology outcomes: a user centered approach. Assist Technol Outcomes Benefits. 2016;10(1):94–110.
   Google Scholar
• Kjeken I, Darre S, Smedslund G, et al. Effect of assistive technology in hand osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled trial. Annals Rheumatic Dis. 2011;70(8):1447–1452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law M and Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. 2014. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Ottawa: Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (CAOT.
   Google Scholar
• Dillaway H, Lysack C, Luborsky M. 2017. Qualitative approaches to interpreting and reporting data. In: R. R. Taylor, editor, Keilhofner’s scholarship in occupational therapy: methods for inquiry for enhancing practice. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Publishers. p. 228–243.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. 2017. ICF Browser. [cited 2020 Mar 31]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icfbrowser/.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz-Krohn W. 2014. Occupational performance assessments. In: I. Asher editor. Asher’s occupational therapy assessment tools: an annotated index. Bethesda MD: AOTA Press.
   Google Scholar