Identifying an outcome measure to assess the impact of Mobility Dogs

References

• Winkle M, Crowe TK, Hendrix I. Service dogs and people with physical disabilities partnerships: a systematic review. Occup Ther Int 2012;19:54–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann E, Katcher AH, Lynch JJ, Thomas SA. Animal companions and one-year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care unit. Public Health Rep 1980;95:307–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen K, Blascovich J. The value of service dogs for people with severe ambulatory disabilities: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1996;275:1001–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachs-Ericsson N, Hansen NK, Fitzgerald S. Benefits of assistance dogs: a review. Rehabil Psychol 2002;47:251–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assistance Dogs International. 2014 November 30. Types of assistance dogs. Available from http://www.assistancedogsinternational.org/about-us/types-of-assistance-dogs/[last accessed 30 Nov 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Fairman SK, Huebner RA. Service dogs: a compensatory resource to improve function. Occup Ther Health Care 2001;13:41–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rintala DH, Matamoros R, Seitz LL. Effects of assistance dogs on persons with mobility or hearing impairments: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev 2008;45:489–503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith MA. MADT impact study. Auckland: Mobility Assistance Dogs Trust; 2013:1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Butterly F, Percy C, Ward G. Brief Report: do service dog providers placing dogs with children with developmental disabilities use outcome measures and, if so, what are they? J Autism Dev Disord 2013;43:2720–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mobility Assistance Dogs Trust 2013 November 30. Our mission. Available from http://www.mobilitydogs.co.nz/[last accessed 30 Nov 2013].
   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
• World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Hubert G, Tousignant M, Routhier Fo, et al. Effect of service dogs on manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injury: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev 2013;50:341–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magasi S, Post MW. A comparative review of contemporary participation measures' psychometric properties and content coverage. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:S17–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magasi SR, Heinemann AW, Whiteneck GG, Quality of Life/Participation Committee. Participation following traumatic spinal cord injury: an evidence-based review for research. J Spinal Cord Med 2008;31:145–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noonan VK. A review of participation instruments based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Disabil Rehabil 2009;31:1883–901.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noonan VK, Miller WC, Noreau L. A review of instruments assessing participation in persons with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2009;47:435–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rintala DH, Sachs-Ericsson N, Hart K. The effects of service dogs on the lives of persons with mobility impairments: a pre-post study design. SCI Psychosoc Process 2002;15:70–82.
   Google Scholar
• Collins DM, Fitzgerald SG, Sachs-Ericsson N, et al. Psychosocial well-being and community participation of service dog partners. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2006;1:41–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Donovan W. The psychological impact of service dogs on their physically disabled owners. Diss Abstr Int B Sci Eng 1995;55:3010.
   Google Scholar
• Shintani M, Senda M, Takayanagi T, et al. The effect of service dogs on the improvement of health-related quality of life. Acta Med Okayama 2010;64:109–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee C, for the COSMIN group. An overview of systematic reviews of measurement properties of measurement instruments that intend to measure (aspects of) health status or (health-related) quality of life. Amsterdam: VU University Medical Center; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Chung P, Yun SJ, Khan F. A comparison of participation outcome measures and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Sets for traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Med 2014;46:108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng PW, James MA, McDonald C. Service dogs for disabled children: effects on level of independence and quality of life. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2000;6:96–104.
   Google Scholar
• Post MW, de Witte LP, Reichrath E, et al. Development and validation of IMPACT-S, an ICF-based questionnaire to measure activities and participation. J Rehabil Med 2008;40:620–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardol M, de Haan RJ, van den Bos GA, et al. The development of a handicap assessment questionnaire: the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA). Clin Rehabil 1999;13:411–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkie R, Peat G, Thomas E, et al. The Keele Assessment of Participation: a new instrument to measure participation restriction in population studies. Combined qualitative and quantitative examination of its psychometric properties. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1889–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandek B, Sinclair SJ, Jette AM, Ware JJE. Development and initial psychometric evaluation of the participation measure for post-acute care (PM-PAC). Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2007;86:57–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Brakel WH, Anderson AM, Mutatkar RK, et al. The Participation Scale: measuring a key concept in public health. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28:193–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray DB, Hollingsworth HH, Stark SL, Morgan KA. Participation Survey/Mobility: psychometric properties of a measure of participation for people with mobility impairments and limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:189–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federici S, Meloni F, Mancini A, et al. World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II: contribution to the Italian validation. Disabil Rehabil 2009;31:553–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kersten P, Cardol M, George S, et al. Validity of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: a comparison between two countries. Disabil Rehabil 2011;29:1502–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sibley A, Kersten P, Ward CD, et al. Measuring autonomy in disabled people: validation of a new scale in a UK population. Clin Rehabil 2006;20:793–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perenboom RJM. Measuring participation according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:577–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris F. Conceptual issues in the measurement of participation among wheeled mobility device users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007;2:137–48.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Miller WC, Auger C. Issues for the selection of wheelchair-specific activity and participation outcome measures: a review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:1177–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar