Client, needs assessor and agency-related factors predicting allocation of electric scooters to community-dwelling elderly in The Netherlands: a vignette study

References

• Verbrugge LM, Rennert C, Madans JH. The great efficacy of personal and equipment assistance in reducing disability. American Journal of Public Health 1997; 87: 384– 392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathieson KM, Kronenfeld JJ, Keith VM. Maintaining functional independence in elderly adults: the roles of health status and financial resources in predicting home modifications and use of mobility equipment. The Gerontologist 2002; 42: 24– 31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell C, Schofield T. Social isolation in old age: a qualitative exploration of service providers’ perceptions. Aging and Society 1999; 19: 69– 91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health. Zorgindicatiebesluit [Resolution of 2 October 1997, regarding field of activities, the formation and the operation procedures of Regional Assessment Organisations]. Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden 447. The Hague, Sdu.
   Google Scholar
• VNG. Handboek Wet Voorzieningen Gehandicapten [Manual for the Services for people with disabilities Act]. The Hague: VNG, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Social Affairs (SZW). Kerncijfers Wvg. 1998; Aantallen en kosten van verstrekte WVG-voorzieningen [Numbers and costs of the WVG]. The Hague: Elsevier, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Roelands M, Van Oost P, Depoorter A, Buysse A. A social- cognitive model to predict the use of assistive devices for mobility and self-care in elderly people. The Gerontologist 2002; 42: 39– 50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraskowsky LH, Finlayson M. Factors affecting older adults’ use of adaptive equipment: review of the literature. American Journal of Occuputional Therapy 2001; 55: 303– 310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkstra GJ, Groothoff JW, Post D. [Consideration of mental symptoms and physical disabilities in deciding upon placement in a residential home versus a nursing home]. Tijdschrift voor Geronto- lologie en Geriatrie 1999; 30: 114– 120.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hennessy CH. Modeling case management decision-making in a consolidated long-term care program. The Gerontologist 1993; 33: 333– 341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gianopoulos C, Bolda EJ, Baldwin M, Olsen L. What works? Maine’s statewide uniform assessment and home care planning tells all. The Gerontologist 2001; 41: 309– 311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degenholtz HB, Kane RA, Kane RL, Finch MD. Long-term care case managers’ out-of-home placement decisions. An application of hierarchical logistic regression. Research on aging 1999; 21: 240– 274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jedeloo S, de Witte LP, Linssen BAJ, Schrijvers AJP. Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility. Disability and Rehabilitation 2002; 24: 550– 557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwick R, Zeller RA. The factorial survey: an experimental method to replicate real world problems. Nursing Research 2001; 50: 129– 133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fihn SD. The quest to quantify quality. JAMA 2000; 283: 1740– 1742.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olesen F. Physicians’A. responses to patient vignettes: are they valid. Family Medicine 1996; 28: 7– 8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goldman HH, Rachuba L, Van Tosh L. Methods of assessing mental health consumers’ preferences for housing and support services. Psychiatric Services 1995; 46: 169– 172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandvik H. Criterion validity of responses to patient vignettes: an analysis based on management of female urinary incontinence. Family Medicine 1995; 27: 388– 392.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Braspenning J, Sergeant J. General practitioners’ decision making for mental health problems: outcomes and ecological validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1994; 47: 1365– 1372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi PH, Nock SL. Measuring social judgments. The factorial survey approach. Beverly Hills: SAGE, 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Kish L. Statistical Design for Research. New York: Wiley, 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Rasbash J, Browne W, Goldstein H, Yang M, Plewis I, Healy M, Woodhouse G, Draper D, Langford I, Lewis T. A user’s guide to MLwiN. London: Multilevel Models Project, University of London, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Rothman K, Greenland S. Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Hox JJ. Applied Multilevel Modeling. Amsterdam: TT-Publications, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Hox JJ. Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW. Hierarchical linear model. Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage, 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein H. Multilevel statistical models. London: Edward Arnold, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Reed RL, Yochum K, Schloss M. Platform motorized wheelchairs in congregate care centers: a survey of usage and safety. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1993; 74: 101– 103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jo¨ rg F, Boeije HR, Schrijvers AJP. Professionals assessing clients’ needs and eligibility for electric scooters: both gatekeepers and clients’ advocates. Submitted. 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Maas CJM, Hox JJ. Su cient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling. Proceedings of the Social Science Methodology in the new millennium. Fifth International Conference on Logic and Methodology. Cologne, Germany. October 3–6, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Commissie modernisering ouderenzorg. Ouderenzorg met toekomst [Future elderly care]. The Hague: Ministry of Health, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Breed Indicatie Overleg. Modelprotocol geı¨ntegreerde indicaties- telling voor het terrein van wonen, welzijn en zorg [Comprehensive assessment protocol]. The Hague: VNG Publishers, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• van Rooij E, Droyan Kodner L, Rijsemus T, Schrijvers AJP (eds.). Health and Healthcare in the Netherlands. A critical self- assessment by Dutch experts in the medical and health sciences. Maarssen: Elsevier, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Schrijvers AJP, Ravelli DP. RIO, het jongste kind. Tussenverslag van de evaluatie van het Zorgindicatiebesluit [Intermediate results of the RIO evaluation study]. Utrecht: Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, 2000.
   Google Scholar