Wheelchair-mounted robotic arms: a survey of occupational therapists’ practices and perspectives

References

• American Occupational Therapy Association. Occupational therapy’s role with providing assistive technology devices and services [Internet]. 2015. [cited 2021 Feb 12]. Available from: https://www.aota.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/AboutOT/Professionals/WhatIsOT/RDP/Facts/AT-fact-sheet.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. CAOT position statement: Assistive technology and occupational therapy [Internet]. 2012. [cited 2021 Feb 12]. Available from: https://caot.in1touch.org/document/3655/assistivetechnology.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Brose SW, Weber DJ, Salatin BA, et al. The role of assistive robotics in the lives of persons with disability. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(6):509–521.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith RO. Technology and occupation: past, present, and the next 100 years of theory and practice. Am J Occup Ther. 2017;71:1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavey A, Warren N, Allen-Collinson J. "It gives me my freedom": technology and responding to bodily limitations in motor neuron disease”. Med Anthropol. 2015;34(5):442–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laffont I, Biard N, Chalubert G, et al. Evaluation of a graphic interface to control a robotic grasping arm: a multicenter study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(10):1740–1748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaudoin M, Lettre J, Routhier F, et al. Impacts of robotic arm use on individuals with upper extremity disabilities: a scoping review. Can J Occup Ther. 2018;85(5):397–407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaudoin M, Lettre J, Routhier F, et al. Long-term use of the JACO robotic arm: a case series. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(3):267–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark E. Utilisation d’un bras robotisé par des personnes ayant un contrôle moteur diminué aux membres supérieurs. Mot Cérébrale Réadapt Neurol Dév. 2013;34(2):63–70.
   Google Scholar
• Kim D, Wang Z, Paperno N, et al. System design and implementation of UCF-MANUS — an intelligent assistive robotic manipulator. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron. 2014;19(1):225–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheu V, Archambault PS, Frappier J, et al. Evaluation of the JACO robotic arm: Clinico-economic study for powered wheelchair users with upper-extremity disabilities. Zurich, Switzerland: IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot; 2011. p. 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Römer GRBE, Stuyt HJA, Peters A. Cost-savings and economic benefits due to the assistive robotic manipulator (ARM). Chicago (IL): IEEE 9th Int Conf Rehabil Robot; 2005. p. 201–204.
   Google Scholar
• Routhier F, Archambault PS, Cyr M-C, et al. Benefits of JACO robotic arm on independent living and social participation: An exploratory study. RESNA Annu Conf [Internet]. Indianapolis, IN; 2014. Available from: https://www.resna.org/sites/default/files/conference/2014/Robotics/Routhier.html.
   Google Scholar
• Routhier F, Archambault PS. Usability of a joystick-controlled six degree-of-freedom robotic manipulator. Las Vegas (NV): RESNA Annu Conf; 2010. p. 7.
   Google Scholar
• Stuyt H, Römer GRBE. IARM improves quality of life: the results of a redesign of the assistive robotic manipulator (arm). Niigata: Sel Pap Jpn Conf Adv Assist Rehabil Technol; 2011. p. 198–204.
   Google Scholar
• Wakita Y, Oyama E, Yoon W, et al. User evaluation of service robotic arms based on ICF through interviews with people with upper-limb disability. 2013 IEEE Int Conf Robot Biomim ROBIO. 2013. p. 1282–1287.
   Google Scholar
• Gelderblom GJ, de Witte L, van Soest K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the Manus robot manipulator. Proc 7th ICORR. Evry Cedex, France. 2001;9:340–345.
   Google Scholar
• Chung C-S, Wang H, Hannan MJ, et al. Task-oriented performance evaluation for assistive robotic manipulators: a pilot study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96(6):395–407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsumoto Y, Nishida Y, Motomura Y, et al. A concept of needs-oriented design and evaluation of assistive robots based on ICF. Zurich, Switzerland: 2011 IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot; 2011. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• van der Heide LA, Roentgen UR, van der Pijl DJ, et al. How could the service delivery process of dynamic arm supports be optimized? TAD. 2017;29(3):101–108.
   Google Scholar
• Roentgen U, Heide L V D, Kremer IEH, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an optimized process of providing assistive technology for impaired upper extremity function: Protocol of a prospective, quasi-experimental non-randomized study (OMARM). Technol Disabil. 2021;33(3):207–220.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich R, Mathiassen NE, Hoogerwerf EJ, et al. Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: an AAATE/EASTIN position paper. Technol Disabil. 2013;25(3):127–146.
   Google Scholar
• Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann Stat. 2001;29:1165–1188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verdonck M, McCormack C, Chard G. Irish occupational therapists’ views of electronic assistive technology. Br J Occup Ther. 2011;74(4):185–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aboujaoudé A, Bier N, Lussier M, et al. Canadian occupational therapists' use of technology with older adults: a nationwide survey. OTJR. 2021;41(2):67–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindsay S. Perceptions of health care workers prescribing augmentative and alternative communication devices to children. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(3):209–222.
   PubMedGoogle 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. 2019;14(4):338–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapadia V, Ariani A, Li J, et al. Emerging ICT implementation issues in aged care. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84(11):892–900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brochard S, Pedelucq J-P, Cormerais A, et al. Satisfaction with technological equipment in individuals with tetraplegia following spinal cord injury. Ann Readaptation Med Phys. 2006;50(2):78–84.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tribunal administratif du Québec. S.M. c. Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec [Internet]. 2020. [cited 2021 May 19]. Available from: http://t.soquij.ca/Yo74S.
   Google Scholar
• Caisse nationale de l’Assurance Maladie. Liste des produits et prestations remboursables [Internet]. 2021. [cited 2021 May 19]. Available from: https://www.ameli.fr/sites/default/files/Documents/729249/document/lpp-07042021.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Liu L, Cruz AM, Rincon AR, et al. What factors determine therapists' acceptance of new technologies for rehabilitation – a study using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(5):447–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar