The physical and psychological impact of using a computer-based environmental control system: a case study

References

• Office for Disability Issues [Internet]. Disability prevalence estimates 2008/9. 2010. Available from: http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/ [last accessed 11 Sep 2011]
   Google Scholar
• The Equality Act. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Brandt A, Samuelsson K, Toytari O, Salminen A-L. Activity and participation, quality of life and user satisfaction outcomes of environmental control systems and smart home technology: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2011;6:189–206
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carlson D, Ehrlich N, Berland BJ, Bailey N. Assistive technology survey results: continued benefits and needs reported by Americans with disabilities. Res Exchange 2001;7
   Google Scholar
• McCreadie C, Tinker A. The acceptability of assistive technology to older people. Ageing Soc 2005;25:91–110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steel DM, Gray MA. Baby boomers’ use and perception of recommended assistive technology. Int J Ther Rehabil 2009;16:546–56
   Google Scholar
• Okoro CA, Strine TW, Balluz LS, et al. Prevalence and correlates of depressive symptoms among United States adults with disabilities using assistive technology. Prev Med 2010;50:204–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foundation for Assistive Technology [Internet]. Assistive technology workforce development: assistive technology user statistics. 2006. Available from: http://www.fastuk.org/ [last accessed 17 Feb 2011]
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health [Internet]. The national service framework for long-term conditions. 2005; 43–6. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/ [last accessed 6 May 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Croser R, Garrett R, Seeger B, Davies P. Effectiveness of electronic aids to daily living: increased independence and decreased frustration. Australian Occupation Ther J 2011;48:35–44
   Google Scholar
• Goodacre L, Turner G. An investigation of the effectiveness of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology via a postal survey. Brit J Occupation Ther 2005;68:93–6
   Google Scholar
• Martire LM, Stephens MAP, Druley JA, Wojno WC. Negative reactions to received spousal care: predictors and consequences of miscarried support. Health Psychol 2002;21:167–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sainty M, Lambkin C, Maile L. ‘I feel so much safer’: unravelling community equipment outcomes. Brit J Occupation Ther 2009;72:499–506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindqvist E, Borell L. 2011. Computer-based assistive technology and changes in daily living after stroke. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol. Available from: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/17483107.2011.638036 [last accessed 5 Jan 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Bradley N, Poppen W. Assistive technology, computers and Internet may decrease sense of isolation for homebound elderly and disabled persons. Technol Disabil 2003;15:19–25
   Google Scholar
• Craig A, Hancock K. Living with spinal cord injury: longitudinal factors, interventions and outcomes. Clin Psychol Psychother 1998;5:102–8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jopson NM, Moss-Morris R. The role of illness severity and illness representations in adjusting to multiple sclerosis. J Psychosom Res 2003;54:503–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinne S, Patrick DL, Doyle DL. Prevalence of secondary conditions among people with disabilities. Am J Public Health 2004;94:443–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [Internet]. Depression in adults with a chronic physical health problem: treatment and management. 2009. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/ [last accessed 23 Mar 2011]
   Google Scholar
• Mann WC, Johnson JL, Lynch LG, et al. Changes in impairment level, functional status, and use of assistive devices by older people with depressive symptoms. Am J Occup Ther 2008;62:9–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamberlain E, Evans N, Neighbour K, Hughes J. Equipment: is it the answer? An audit of equipment provision. Brit J Occupation Ther 2001;64:595–600
   Google Scholar
• Cowan RE, Fregly BJ, Boninger ML, et al. Recent trends in assistive technology for mobility. J NeuroEng Rehabil 2012;9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin JK, Martin LG, Stumbo NJ, Morrill JH. The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2011;6:225–42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol 1993;5:36–45
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• The NHS Information Centre, Adult Social Care Statistics [Internet]. Personal social services survey of adults receiving community equipment and minor adaptations in England, 2009–10. 2010. Available from: http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/pssadultsequip0910 [last accessed 10 May 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Wessels R, Djicks B, Soede M, et al. Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature review. Technol Disabil 2003;15:231–8
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disabil Rehabil 1996;18:439–48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weilandt T, Strong J. Compliance with prescribed adaptive equipment: a literature review. Brit J Occup Ther 2000;63:65–75
   Google Scholar
• Judge S, Robertson Z, Hawley M, Enderby P. Speech-driven environmental control systems: a qualitative analysis of users’ perceptions. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2009;4:151–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scheier MF, Carver CS. Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognit Ther Res 1992;16:201–28
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer M, Jutai J, Fuhrer M, et al. A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2007;2:1–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu J-R, Moser DK, Chung ML, Lennie TA. Predictors of medication adherence using a multidimensional adherence model in patients with heart failure. J Cardiac Fail 2008;14:603–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellings DJ, Unsworth J. Environmental control systems for people with a disability: an update. Brit Med 1997;315:409–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer P, Seale J. Exploring the attitudes to environmental control systems of people with physical disabilities: a grounded theory approach. Technol Disabil 2007;19:17–27
   Google Scholar
• Talbot K, Turner MR, Marsden R, Botell R. Disability management. In: Talbot K, Turner MR, Marsden R, Botell R, editors. Motor neuron disease: a practical manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010:145–76
   Google Scholar
• The Long Term Conditions Neurology Community [Internet]. Brief notes on environmental control systems for disabled people. 2011. Available from: http://www.ltc-community.org.uk/page.asp?id=3157 [last accessed 24 Sep 2011]
   Google Scholar
• Harmer J, Bakheit AMO. The benefits of environmental control systems as perceived by disabled users and their carers. Brit J Occup Ther 1999;62:394–8
   Google Scholar
• Craig A, Moses P, Tran Y, et al. The effectiveness of a hands-free environmental control system for the profoundly disabled. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:1455–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawley MS, Enderby P, Green P, et al. A speech-controlled environmental control system for people with severe dysarthria. Med Eng Phys 2007;29:586–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig A, Tran Y, McIsaac P, Boord P. The efficacy and benefits of environmental control systems for the severely disabled. Med Sci Monitor 2004;11:RA32–39
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parette P, Scherer M. Assistive technology use and stigma. Educ Train Develop Disabil 2004;39:217–26
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welsh Assembly Government. Smart software turns disability into ability. Advances: The Journal for Science, Engineering and Technology in Wales 2010;65:17
   Google Scholar
• Riley-Tillman TC, Burns MK. Evaluating educational interventions: single-case design for measuring response to intervention. London: The Guildford Press; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges, MW. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J Personal Social Psychol 1994;67:1063–78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 1965;14:56–61
   Google Scholar
• Schuling J, de Haan R, Limburg M, Groenier KH. The Frenchay activities index assessment of functional status in stroke patients. Stroke 1993;24:1173–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg D. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Windsor: NFER-Nelson; 1997
   Google Scholar
• Atkins AC, Harris P. Using reflexology to manage stress in the workplace: a preliminary study. Complement Ther Clin Pract 2008;14:280–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bech P. Male depression and aggression as pathways to major depression. In: Dawson A, Tylee A, editors. Depression: social and economic timebomb. London: BMJ Books; 2001:63–6
   Google Scholar
• Bech P, Olsen LR, Kjoller M, Rasmussen NK. Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO-Five Well-Being Scale. Int J Meth Psychiatr Res 2003;12:85–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindqvist E, Borell L. Computer-based assistive technology and changes in daily living after stroke. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2012;7:364--71
   Google Scholar
• Fayers PM, Machin D. Introduction in quality of life: assessment, analysis, and interpretation. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2000
   Google Scholar
• Parkin D, Rice N, Jacoby A, Doughty J. Use of a visual analogue scale in a daily patient diary: modelling cross-sectional time-series data on health-related quality of life. Social Sci Med 2004;59:351–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison V, Bennett P. The impact of illness on patients and their families. In: Morrison V, Bennett P, editors. An introduction to health psychology. 3rd ed. Harlow, England: Pearson Education; 2012:404–35
   Google Scholar
• Brown JD, Marshall, MA. Great expectations: optimism and pessimism in achievement settings. In: Chang EC, editor. Optimism & pessimism: implications for theory, research, and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2001:239–55
   Google Scholar
• Carver CS, Scheier MF, Segerstrom SC. Optimism. Clin Psychol Rev 2010;30:879–89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jutai JW, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, et al. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:294–302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner BF. The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. Oxford, England: Appleton-Century; 1938
   Google Scholar
• Craig AR, Hancock K, Dickson H, Chang E. Long-term psychological outcomes in spinal cord injured persons: results of a controlled trial using cognitive behavior therapy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78:33–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evandrou M, Glaser K. Family, work and quality of life: changing economic and social roles through the lifecourse. Ageing Soc 2004;24:771--91
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Personal Assess 1985;49:71–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman VA, Agree EM, Martin LG, Cornman JC. Trends in the use of assistive technology and personal care for late-life disability, 1992–2001. Gerontologist 2005;46:124–7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryman A. Social research methods. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2004
   Google Scholar
• Smith JA. Planning an IPA research study. In: Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin, M, editors. Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. 40–55
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol Disabil 2002;14:125–31
   Google Scholar
• Berlin JA. N-of-1 clinical trials should incorporated into clinical practice. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:1283–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Care Quality Commission [Internet]. Focused on better care: annual report 2009/10. 2010. Available from: http://www.cqc.org.uk/ [last accessed 2 Oct 2011]
   Google Scholar