Exploring the barriers to using assistive technology for individuals with chronic conditions: a meta-synthesis review

References

• Kyu HH, Abate D, Abate KH, et al. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 359 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1859–1922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation and World Bank. World Report on disability. Geneva, Switzerland; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Foreman KJ, Marquez N, Dolgert A, et al. Forecasting life expectancy, years of life lost, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 250 causes of death: reference and alternative scenarios for 2016–40 for 195 countries and territories. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):2052–2090.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dieleman JL, Sadat N, Chang AY, et al. Trends in future health financing and coverage: future health spending and universal health coverage in 188 countries, 2016–40. Lancet. 2018;391(10132):1783–1798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Health. Long term conditions compendium of information, 3rd ed. In: Health Do, editor; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Keller VF, Carroll JG. A new model for physician-patient communication. Patient Educ Couns. 1994;23(2):131–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mead J, Fisher Z, Lowri W, et al. Rethinking wellbeing: toward a more ethical science of wellbeing that considers current and future generations. Authorea; 2019.DOI:https://doi.org/10.22541/au.156649190.08734276
   Google Scholar
• Anderson RM. Patient empowerment and the traditional medical model. A case of irreconcilable differences? Diabetes Care. 1995;18(3):412–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grumbach K. Chronic illness, comorbidities, and the need for medical generalism. Ann Fam Med. 2003;1(1):4–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ekman I, Swedberg K, Taft C, et al. Person-centered care-ready for prime time. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011;10(4):248–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow J, Wright C, Sheasby J, et al. Self-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: a review. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48(2):177–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan JE, Briggs AM, Brand CA, et al. Enhancing patient engagement in chronic disease self‐management support initiatives in Australia: the need for an integrated approach. Med J Aust. 2008;189:S10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dineen-Griffin S, Garcia-Cardenas V, Williams K, et al. Helping patients help themselves: a systematic review of self-management support strategies in primary health care practice. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0220116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp A, Arias JA, Fisher Z. Social ties, health and wellbeing: a literature review and model. In: Ibáñez A., Sedeño L., A. G, editors. Neuroscience and social science: the missing link. New York: Springer; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organisaiton; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Alford VM, Ewen S, Webb GR, et al. The use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health to understand the health and functioning experiences of people with chronic conditions from the person perspective: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(8):655–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khasnabis C, Mirza Z, Maclachlan M. Opening the GATE to inclusion for people with disabilities. Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2229–2230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNicholl A, Casey H, Desmond D, et al. The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;23:1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrilahij A, Boll T. A qualitative metasynthesis of reasons for the use or nonuse of assistive technologies in the aging population. GeroPsych. 2019;32(2):79–92.
   Google Scholar
• Mechling LC. Assistive technology as a self-management tool for prompting students with intellectual disabilities to initiate and complete daily tasks: a literature review. Educ Training Dev Disabil. 2007;42(3):252–269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead L, Seaton P. The effectiveness of self-management mobile phone and Tablet Apps in long-term condition management: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(5):e97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Ommeren AL, Smulders LC, Prange-Lasonder GB, et al. Assistive technology for the upper extremities after stroke: systematic review of users' needs. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;5(2):e10510.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O'Neill B, Gillespie A. Assistive Technology for Cognition: a handbook for clinicians and developers. London: Taylor & Francis; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Mitzner TL, Boron JB, Fausset CB, et al. Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(6):1710–1721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madara Marasinghe K. Assistive technologies in reducing caregiver burden among informal caregivers of older adults: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(5):353–360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lansley P, McCreadie C, Tinker A. Can adapting the homes of older people and providing assistive technology pay its way? Age Ageing. 2004;33(6):571–576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. Assistive Technology: World Health Organisation; 2018. [cited 2019 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/assistive-technology.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. From people-centered to person-centered services, and back again. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9(1):1–2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5(1):36–45.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• 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(7):716–723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer M. Living in the state of stuck: how assistive technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson L, Gibson G, Kingston A, et al. Assistive technologies in caring for the oldest old: a review of current practice and future directions. Aging Health. 2013;9(4):365–375.
   Google Scholar
• Orejuela-Zapata JF, Rodriguez S, Ramirez GL. Self-help devices for quadriplegic population: a systematic literature review. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019;27(4):692–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alqahtani S, Joseph J, Dicianno B, et al. Stakeholder perspectives on research and development priorities for mobility assistive-technology: a literature review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;10:1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdi S, Spann A, Borilovic J, et al. Understanding the care and support needs of older people: a scoping review and categorisation using the WHO international classification of functioning, disability and health framework (ICF). BMC Geriatrics. 2019;19(1):195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton L, Dickinson C, Gibson G, et al. Exploring the views of GPs, people with dementia and their carers on assistive technology: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(5):e011132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boot FH, Owuor J, Dinsmore J, et al. Access to assistive technology for people with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2018;62(10):900–921.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawe M. Desperately seeking simplicity. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems – CHI '06; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Kaye HS, Yeager P, Reed M. Disparities in usage of assistive technology among people with disabilities. Assist Technol. 2008;20(4):194–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thordardottir B, Malmgren Fange A, Lethin C, et al. Acceptance and use of innovative assistive technologies among people with cognitive impairment and their caregivers: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:9196729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klimova B, Valis M, Kuca K. Exploring assistive technology as a potential beneficial intervention tool for people with Alzheimer's disease – a systematic review. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2018;14:3151–3158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutner CA, Galovski T, Bovin MJ, et al. Emergence of transdiagnostic treatments for PTSD and posttraumatic distress. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2016;18(10):95–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson Ranada A, Lidstrom 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
• Lachal J, Revah-Levy A, Orri M, et al. Metasynthesis: an original method to synthesize qualitative literature in psychiatry. Front Psychiatry. 2017;8:269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
   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(1):45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Critical Appriasal Skills Programme. CASP Qualitative checklist 2018. [cited 2019 Nov 26]. Available from: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Holthe T, Jentoft R, Arntzen C, et al. Benefits and burdens: family caregivers' experiences of assistive technology (AT) in everyday life with persons with young-onset dementia (YOD). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(8):754–762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldwin VN, Powell T, Lorenc L. Factors influencing the uptake of memory compensations: a qualitative analysis. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2011;21(4):484–501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook EJ, Randhawa G, Sharp C, et al. Exploring the factors that influence the decision to adopt and engage with an integrated assistive telehealth and telecare service in Cambridgeshire, UK: a nested qualitative study of patient 'users' and 'non-users'. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riikonen M, Paavilainen E, Salo H. Factors supporting the use of technology in daily life of home-living people with dementia. TAD. 2013;25(4):233–243.
   Google Scholar
• Boger J, Quraishi M, Turcotte N, et al. The identification of assistive technologies being used to support the daily occupations of community-dwelling older adults with dementia: a cross-sectional pilot study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9(1):17–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Asghar I, Cang S, Yu H. Usability evaluation of assistive technologies through qualitative research focusing on people with mild dementia. Comput Hum Behav. 2018;79:192–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demain S, Burridge J, Ellis-Hill C, et al. Assistive technologies after stroke: self-management or fending for yourself? A focus group study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gitlin LN, Luborsky MR, Schemm RL. Emerging concerns of older stroke patients about assistive device use. Gerontologist. 1998;38(2):169–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elnady A, Mortenson WB, Menon C. Perceptions of existing wearable robotic devices for upper extremity and suggestions for their development: findings from therapists and people with stroke. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;5(1):e12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oyesanya T, Thompson N, Arulselvam K, et al. Technology and TBI: perspectives of persons with TBI and their family caregivers on technology solutions to address health, wellness, and safety concerns. Assist Technol: Off J RESNA. 2019:1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taherian S, Davies C. Multiple stakeholder perceptions of assistive technology for individuals with cerebral palsy in New Zealand. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(7):648–657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myburg M, Allan E, Nalder E, et al. Environmental control systems – the experiences of people with spinal cord injury and the implications for prescribers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(2):128–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seymour N, Geiger M, Scheffler E. Community-based rehabilitation workers' perspectives of wheelchair provision in Uganda: a qualitative study. Afr J Disabil. 2019;8:432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fomiatti R, Moir L, Richmond J, et al. The experience of being a motorised mobility scooter user. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9(3):183–187.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McGrath C, Astell A. The benefits and barriers to technology acquisition: understanding the decision-making processes of older adults with age-related vision loss (ARVL). Br J Occup Ther. 2017;80(2):123–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adolfsson P, Lindstedt H, Pettersson I, et al. Perception of the influence of environmental factors in the use of electronic planning devices in adults with cognitive disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(6):493–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira J, Pena C, de Melo M, et al. Facilitators and Barriers to Using Alternative and Augmentative Communication Systems by Aphasic: Therapists Perceptions. 2019 IEEE 32nd International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS); 2019. p. 349–354.
   Google Scholar
• Darcy S, Maxwell H, Green J. Disability citizenship and independence through mobile technology? A study exploring adoption and use of a mobile technology platform. Disabil Soc. 2016;31(4):497–519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orellano-Colon EM, Mann WC, Rivero M, et al. Hispanic older adult's perceptions of personal, contextual and technology-related barriers for using assistive technology devices. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2016;3(4):676–686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fager SK, Burnfield JM. Patients' experiences with technology during inpatient rehabilitation: opportunities to support independence and therapeutic engagement. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9(2):121–127.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mann WC, Tomita M. Perspectives on assistive devices among elderly persons with disabilities. TAD. 1998;9(3):119–148.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson G, Dickinson C, Brittain K, et al. The everyday use of assistive technology by people with dementia and their family carers: a qualitative study. BMC Geriatrics. 2015;15:89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber E. The benefits of and barriers to computer use for individuals who are visually impaired. J Visual Impairment Blindness. 2003;97(9):536–550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson M, Jack R, O'Neill B, et al. Technology to encourage meaningful activities following brain injury. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;15:1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andregard E, Magnusson L. Experiences of attitudes in Sierra Leone from the perspective of people with poliomyelitis and amputations using orthotics and prosthetics. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(26):2619–2625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorjbal D, Prodinger B, Zanini C, et al. Living with spinal cord injury in Mongolia: a qualitative study on perceived environmental barriers. J Spinal Cord Med. 2019;11:1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google 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
• Weerasinghe IE, Fonseka P, Dharmaratne S, et al. Barriers in using assistive devices among a group of community-dwelling persons with lower limb disabilities in Sri Lanka. DCID. 2015;26(1):79.
   Google Scholar
• Ravneberg B. Usability and abandonment of assistive technology. J Assist Technol. 2012;6(4):259–269.
   Google Scholar
• Smith R, Quine S, Anderson J, et al. Assistive devices: self-reported use by older people in Victoria. Aust Health Rev. 2002;25(4):169–177.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gelinas-Bronsard D, Mortenson WB, Ahmed S, et al. Co-construction of an Internet-based intervention for older assistive technology users and their family caregivers: stakeholders' perceptions. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(6):602–611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boot FH, MacLachlan M, Dinsmore J. Are there differences in factors influencing access and continues use of assistive products for people with intellectual disabilities living in group homes?. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;15:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durham J, Sychareun V, Santisouk P, et al. Users’ satisfaction with prosthetic and orthotic assistive devices in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic: a cross-sectional study. DCID. 2016;27(3):24–44.
   Google Scholar
• Holz A, Bennett A, Freethy A, et al. Exploring the views of individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on the use of rollators: a qualitative study. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2018;38(1):49–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Pysklywec A, Fuhrer MJ, et al. Caregivers' experiences with the selection and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(6):562–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedberg-Kristensson E, Ivanoff SD, Iwarsson S. Experiences among older persons using mobility devices. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(1):15–22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Okonji PE, Ogwezzy DC. Awareness and barriers to adoption of assistive technologies among visually impaired people in Nigeria. Assist Technol. 2019;31(4):209–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creemers H, Beelen A, Grupstra H, et al. The provision of assistive devices and home adaptations to patients with ALS in the Netherlands: patients' perspectives. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2014;15(5–6):420–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Den Heuvel E, Jowitt F, McIntyre A. Awareness, requirements and barriers to use of Assistive Technology designed to enable independence of people suffering from Dementia (ATD). TAD. 2012;24(2):139–148.
   Google Scholar
• Berkun S. Programmers, designers, and the Brooklyn bridge. 2004. [cited 2020 Mar 1]. Available from: https://scottberkun.com/essays/30-programmers-designers-and-the-brooklyn-bridge/
   Google Scholar
• Orpwood RD. Design methodology for aids for the disabled. J Med Eng Technol. 1990;14(1):2–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orpwood R, Bjørneby S, Hagen I, et al. User involvement in dementia product development. Dementia: Int J Soc Res Pract. 2004;3(3):263–279.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson G, Dickinson C, Brittain K, et al. Personalisation, customisation and bricolage: how people with dementia and their families make assistive technology work for them. Ageing Soc. 2019;39(11):2502–2519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh T, Procter R, Wherton J, et al. What is quality in assisted living technology? The ARCHIE framework for effective telehealth and telecare services. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pols J, Willems D. Innovation and evaluation: taming and unleashing telecare technology. Sociol Health Illn. 2011;33(3):484–498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López Gómez D. Little arrangements that matter. Rethinking autonomy-enabling innovations for later life. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2015; 93:91–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, et al. What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. Soc Sci Med. 2013;93:86–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büscher M, Gill S, Mogensen P, et al. Landscapes of practice: Bricolage as a method for situated design. Comput Supported Cooperative Work. 2001;10(1):1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Hartswood M, Procter R, Rouncefield M, et al. Being there and doing IT in the workplace: a case study of a co-development approach in healthcare. Proceedings of the CPSR/IFIP WG 9.1 Participatory Design Conference; 2000. p. 96–105.
   Google Scholar
• Parette P, Scherer M. Assistive technology use and stigma. Educ Training Dev Disabil. 2004;39(3):217–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arboleda-Flórez J. What causes stigma? World Psychiatry. 2002;1(1):25–26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cioffi D. The looking-glass self revisited: behavior choice and self-perception in the social token. The social psychology of stigma. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2000. p. 184–219.
   Google Scholar
• Kwasnicka D, Dombrowski SU, White M, et al. Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behaviour change: a systematic review of behaviour theories. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(3):277–296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Cappellen P, Rice EL, Catalino LI, et al. Positive affective processes underlie positive health behaviour change. Psychol Health. 2018;33(1):77–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dourish P. What we talk about when we talk about context. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2004;8(1):19–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Procter R, et al. Co-production in practice: how people with assisted living needs can help design and evolve technologies and services. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Realpe A, Wallace LM. What is co-production? London: The Health Foundation. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Pope C. Resisting evidence: the study of evidence-based medicine as a contemporary social movement. Health (London). 2003;7(3):267–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wieringa S, Engebretsen E, Heggen K, et al. Has evidence-based medicine ever been modern? A Latour-inspired understanding of a changing EBM. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23(5):964–970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis J. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh T. Why do we always end up here? Evidence-based medicine's conceptual Cul-De-Sacs and some off-road alternative routes. J Prim Health Care. 2012;4(2):92–97.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N, Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ. 2014;348:g3725.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mol A. The logic of care: health and the problem of patient choice. London: Routledge; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Hinder S, Greenhalgh T. "This does my head in". Ethnographic study of self-management by people with diabetes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruston A, Smith F. Chronic illness, self-management and technology: type 1 diabetes patients’ views of the use of technology to communicate with health professionals about their disease. Patient Intelligence. 2012;4:71.
   Google Scholar
• Dougherty D. The maker movement. Innov: Technol Governance, Global. 2012;7(3):11–14.
   Google Scholar