An observational study of powered wheelchair provision in Italy

References

• Andrich, R., & Caracciolo, A. (2007). Analysing the cost of individual assistive technology programmes. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2(4), 207–234. doi:10.1080/17483100701325035
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andrich, R., Gower, V., Pigini, L., Caracciolo, A., & Agnoletto, A. (2011). Portale SIVA: The Italian National Portal on Assistive Technology. In G. J. Gelderblom, M. Soede, L. Adriaens, & K. Miesenberger (Eds.), Everyday technology for independence and care (AAATE 2011) (pp. 177–184). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich, R., Mathiassen, N. E., Hoogerwerf, E. J., & Gelderblom, G. J. (2013). Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: An AAATE/EASTIN position paper. Technology and Disability, 25(3), 127–146.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich, R., Pedroni, F., & Vanni, G. (2003). Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices: Italian localization of the PIADS instrument. In G. M. Craddock (Ed.), Assistive technology: Shaping the future (AAATE 2003) (pp. 917–921). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anttila, H., Samuelsson, K., Salminen, A. L., & Brandt, A. (2012). Quality of evidence of AT interventions for people with disability: An overview of systematic reviews. Technology and Disability, 24, 9–48.
   Google Scholar
• Bakhsh, H., Franchignoni, F., Ferriero, G., Giordano, A., & Demers, L. (2014). Translation into Arabic of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 and validation in orthosis users. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 37(4), 361–367. doi:10.1097/MRR.0000000000000086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonnet, X., Adde, J. N., Blanchard, F., Gedouin-Toquet, A., & Eveno, D. (2014). Evaluation of a new geriatric foot versus the Solid Ankle Cushion Heel foot for low-activity amputees. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 39, 112–118. doi:10.1177/0309364613515492
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borg, J., Larsson, S., & Östergren, P.-O. (2011). The right to assistive technology: For whom, for what, and by whom? Disability & Society, 26(2), 151–167. doi:10.1080/09687599.2011.543862
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt, A., Sund, T., & Anttila, H. (2013). Relationships between effectiveness, psychological functioning, and satisfaction outcomes of powered mobility interventions. In P. Encarnação, L. Azevedo, G. J. Gelderblom, A. Newell, & N. E. Mathiassen (Eds.), Assistive technology from research to practice (pp. 1198–1203). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carvalho, K. E. C. D., Júnior, G., Bolívar, M., & Sá, K. N. (2014). Translation and validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) into Portuguese. Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia, 54(4), 260–267. doi:10.1016/j.rbr.2014.04.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (2008). Cook and Hussey’s assistive technologies: Principles and practice (p. 411). St Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2002). The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, K., & McCluskey, A. (2010). A survey of adult power wheelchair and scooter users. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 5(6), 411–419. doi:10.3109/17483101003793412
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Federici, S., & Borsci, S. (2011). The use and non-use of assistive technology in Italy: A pilot study. In G. J. Gelderblom, M. Soede, L. Adriaens, & K. Miesenberger (Eds.), Everyday technology for independence and care (pp. 979–986). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fucelli, P. (2002). Organizzazione di un Servizio Ausili nel territorio dell’ASL 1 Umbria (Organization of an Assistive Technology Assessment Service in the Umbria/1 Local Health Authority) (Assistive Technology Postgraduate Course Thesis). Catholic University of Milan (in Italian). Retrieved from http://portale.siva.it/files/doc/library/2001_fucelli.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Scherer, M. J., & DeRuyter, F. (2003). A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability & Rehabilitation, 25(22), 1243–1251. doi:10.1080/09638280310001596207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gower, V., Andrich, R., & Agnoletto, A. (2014). Federating databases of assistive technology products: Latest advancements of the European Assistive Technology Information Network. In Universal access in human-computer interaction. Design for all and accessibility practice (pp. 378–389). Berlin, Germany: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, D. B., Hollingsworth, H. H., Stark, S., & Morgan, K. A. (2008). A subjective measure of environmental facilitators and barriers to participation for people with mobility limitations. Disability & Rehabilitation, 30(6), 434–457. doi:10.1080/09638280701625377
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson, L. (2009). Statistics of assistive technology: An overview of National studies. Vallinby, Sweden: Hjalpmedelsinstitutet.
   Google Scholar
• Hammel, J., Southall, K., Jutai, J., Finlayson, M., Kashindi, G., & Fok, D. (2013). Evaluating use and outcomes of mobility technology: A multiple stakeholder analysis. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8(4), 294–304. doi:10.3109/17483107.2012.735745
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harada, N., Fong, S., Heiney, C., Yentes, J. M., Perell-Gerson, K. L., & Fang, M. A. (2014). Evaluation of two cane instruments in older adults with knee osteoarthritis. Journal of Rehabilitation Research And Development, 51(2), 275–283. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2013.06.0140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT). (2013). Health status and use of health services. Rome, Italy: ISTAT.
   Google Scholar
• Jutai, J., & Day, H. (2002). Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technology and Disability, 14(3), 107–111.
   Google Scholar
• Magnusson, L., Ramstrand, N., Fransson, E. I., & Ahlström, G. (2014). Mobility and satisfaction with lower-limb prostheses and orthoses among users in Sierra Leone: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 46(5), 438–446. doi:10.2340/16501977-1780
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Agency for Regional Health Services (AGENAS). (2014). 2012 health expense monitoring. Retrieved from http://www.agenas.it
   Google Scholar
• Nedopil C., Schauber C., & Glende S. (2013). Guideline: The art and joy of user integration in AAL projects. Brussels: Ambient Assisted Living Association. Retrieved from http://www.aal-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/AALA_Guideline_YOUSE_online.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nordström, B., Nyberg, L., Ekenberg, L., & Näslund, A. (2014). The psychosocial impact on standing devices. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9(4), 299–306. doi:10.3109/17483107.2013.807443
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Orellano, E. M., & Jutai, J. W. (2013). Cross-cultural adaptation of the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Device Scale (PIADS) for Puerto Rican assistive technology users. Assistive Technology, 25(4), 194–203. doi:10.1080/10400435.2012.761292
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philips, B., & Zhao, H. (1993). Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology, 5(1), 36–45. doi:10.1080/10400435.1993.10132205
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salatino, C., & Andrich, R. (2013). Facilitators and barriers to participation survey for people with mobility limitations: Italian localization of the FABS/M instrument. In P. Encarnação, L. Azevedo, G. J. Gelderblom, A. Newell, & N. E. Mathiassen (Eds.), Assistive technology from research to practice (pp. 545–550). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelsson, K., & Wressle, E. (2014). Powered wheelchairs and scooters for outdoor mobility: A pilot study on costs and benefits. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9(4), 330–334. doi:10.3109/17483107.2013.827244
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherer, M. J. (1996). Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disability & Rehabilitation, 18(9), 439–448. doi:10.3109/09638289609165907
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siva. (2014). Battery of questionnaires for follow-up of mobility assistive technologies. Retrieved from http://portale.siva.it/en-GB/databases/libraries/detail/id-448
   Google Scholar
• Torkia, C., Reid, D., Korner-Bitensky, N., Kairy, D., Rushton, P. W., Demers, L., & Archambault, P. S. (2014). Power wheelchair driving challenges in the community: A users’ perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 10(3), 211–215. doi:10.3109/17483107.2014.898159
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verza, R., Carvalho, M. L., Battaglia, M. A., & Uccelli, M. M. (2006). An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Multiple Sclerosis, 12(1), 88–93. doi:10.1191/1352458506ms1233oa
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vincent, C., Routhier, F., Martel, V., Mottard, M.-È., Dumont, F., Côté, L., & Cloutier, D. (2014). Field testing of two electronic mobility aid devices for persons who are deaf-blind. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9(5), 414–420. doi:10.3109/17483107.2013.825929
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2001). International Classification of Functioning. Disability and Health (ICF). Retrieved from http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/
   Google Scholar