Environmental barriers to participation and facilitators for use of three types of assistive technology devices

References

• Arthanat, S., Nochajski, S. M., Lenker, J. A., Bauer, S. M., & Wu, Y. W. (2009). Measuring usability of assistive technology from a multicontextual perspective: The case of power wheelchairs. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(6), 751–764. doi:10.5014/ajot.63.6.751
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auger, C., Demers, L., Gelinas, I., Jutai, J., Fuhrer, M. J., & DeRuyter, F. (2008). Powered mobility for middle-aged and older adults: Systematic review of outcomes and appraisal of published evidence. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87(8), 666–680. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e31816de163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batavia, A. I., & Hammer, G. S. (1990). Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 27(4), 425. doi:10.1682/JRRD.1990.10.0425
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Biddiss, E., & Chau, T. (2007). Upper-limb prosthetics: Critical factors in device abandonment. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86(12), 977–987. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181587f6c
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biddiss, E. A., & Chau, T. T. (2007). Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 31(3), 236–257. doi:10.1080/03093640600994581
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgestig, M., Sandqvist, J., Ahlsten, G., Falkmer, T., & Hemmingsson, H. (2016). Gaze-based assistive technology in daily activities in children with severe physical impairments—An intervention study. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 20(3) 129–141. doi:10.3109/17518423.2015.1132281
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boschen, K., Noreau, L., & Fougeyrollas, E. (1997). Measure of the quality of the environment: Reliability study. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 11, 13.
   Google Scholar
• Brunner, M., Hemsley, B., Togher, L., & Palmer, S. (2017). Technology and its role in rehabilitation for people with cognitive-communication disability following a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Brain Injury, 31(8) 1028–1043. doi:10.1080/02699052.2017.1292429
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao, Y., Walker, E. A., & Krause, J. S. (2015). Environmental barriers and subjective health among people with chronic spinal cord injury: A cohort study. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 38(4), 526–531. doi:10.1179/2045772314y.0000000275
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, R., Blomquist, U.-B., Richter, A., & Lampel, A. (2014). The service delivery system for assistive technology in Sweden: Current situation and trends. Technology & Disability, 26(4), 191–197.
   Google Scholar
• De Jonge, D. M., & Rodger, S. A. (2006). Consumer-identified barriers and strategies for optimizing technology use in the workplace. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1(1–2), 79–88. doi:10.1080/09638280500167324
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Joode, E., Van Heugten, C., Verhey, F., & Van Boxtel, M. (2010). Efficacy and usability of assistive technology for patients with cognitive deficits: A systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation, 24(8), 701–714. doi:10.1177/0269215510367551
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ephraim, P. L., MacKenzie, E. J., Wegener, S. T., Dillingham, T. R., & Pezzin, L. E. (2006). Environmental barriers experienced by amputees: The Craig hospital inventory of environmental factors-short form. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87(3), 328–333. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2005.11.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming, J., Nalder, E., Alves-Stein, S., & Cornwell, P. (2014). The effect of environmental barriers on community integration for individuals with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 29(2), 125–135. doi:10.1097/HTR.0b013e318286545d
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gramstad, A., Storli, S. L., & Hamran, T. (2013). “Do I need it? Do I really need it?” Elderly peoples experiences of unmet assistive technology device needs. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8(4), 287–293. doi:10.3109/17483107.2012.699993
   PubMedGoogle 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 and Rehabilitation, 30(6), 434–457. doi:10.1080/09638280701625377
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemmingsson, H., Lidström, H., & Nygard, L. (2009). Use of assistive technology devices in mainstream schools: Students’ perspective. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(4), 463–472. doi:10.5014/ajot.63.4.463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermansson, L. M. (1991). Structured training of children fitted with myoelectric prostheses. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 15(2), 88–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Standards Organization (ISO). (2011). ISO 9999:2011(en). Assistive products for persons with disability—Classification and terminology. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9999:ed-5:v1:en
   Google Scholar
• Janeslätt, G., Lindstedt, H., & Adolfsson, P. (2015). Daily time management and influence of environmental factors on use of electronic planning devices in adults with mental disability. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 10(5), 371–377. doi:10.3109/17483107.2014.917124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judge, S., Robertson, Z., Hawley, M., & Enderby, P. (2009). Speech-driven environmental control systems—A qualitative analysis of users’ perceptions. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 4(3), 151–157. doi:10.1080/17483100802715100
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kielhofner, G. (2007). Model of human occupation: Theory and application (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson Lund, M., & Lexell, J. (2009). Associations between perceptions of environmental barriers and participation in persons with late effects of polio. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 16(4), 194–204. doi:10.3109/11038120802676691
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker, J. A., Harris, F., Taugher, M., & Smith, R. O. (2013). Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8(5), 373–380. doi:10.3109/17483107.2012.749429
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lenker, J. A., & Paquet, V. L. (2003). A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology, 15(1), 1–15. doi:10.1080/10400435.2003.10131885
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, L. R., Lau, R. W., & Pang, M. Y. (2012). Measuring environmental barriers faced by individuals living with stroke: Development and validation of the Chinese version of the Craig hospital inventory of environmental factors. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44(9), 740–746. doi:10.2340/16501977-1014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidström, H., & Hemmingsson, H. (2014). Benefits of the use of ICT in school activities by students with motor, speech, visual, and hearing impairment: A literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 21(4), 251–266. doi:10.3109/11038128.2014.880940
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidstrom, H., Lindskog-Wallander, M., & Arnemo, E. (2015). Using a participatory action research design to develop an application together with young adults with spina bifida. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 217, 189–194.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lien, W. C., Guo, N. W., Chang, J. H., Lin, Y. C., & Kuan, T. S. (2014). Relationship of perceived environmental barriers and disability in community-dwelling elderly in Taiwan—A population-based study. BMC Geriatrics, 14, 59. doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindner, H., Hiyoshi, A., & Hermansson, L. (2017). Relation between capacity and performance in paediatric upper limb prosthesis users. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. First published June 22, 1–7. doi:10.1177/0309364617704802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindner, H. Y., Eliasson, A. C., & Hermansson, L. M. (2013). Influence of standardized activities on validity of assessment of capacity for myoelectric control. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 50(10), 1391–1400. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2012.12.0231
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pless, M., & Granlund, M. (2011). Handbok i att använda ICF och ICF-CY. Stockholm, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, L. E., Glang, A., Pinkelman, S., Albin, R., Harwick, R., Ettel, D., & Wild, M. R. (2015). Systematic instruction of assistive technology for cognition (ATC) in an employment setting following acquired brain injury: A single case, experimental study. NeuroRehabilitation, 37(3), 437–447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radomski, M. V., Anheluk, M., Bartzen, M. P., & Zola, J. (2016). Effectiveness of interventions to address cognitive impairments and improve occupational performance after traumatic brain injury: A systematic review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70(3), 7003180050p1–7003180050p9. doi:105014/ajot.2016020776
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sörbye, R. (1980). Myoelectric prosthetic fitting in young children. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 148, 131–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steel, E. J., & De Witte, L. P. (2011). Advances in European assistive technology service delivery and recommendations for further improvement. Technology & Disability, 23(3), 131–138.
   Google Scholar
• Sveriges Riksdag. (2016). Diskrimineringslag (2008:567). Retrieved from http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/diskrimineringslag-2008567_sfs-2008-567
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2008). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol New York. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/
   Google Scholar
• Wang, J., Ding, D., Teodorski, E. E., Mahajan, H. P., & Cooper, R. A. (2016). Use of assistive technology for cognition among people with traumatic brain injury: A survey study. Military Medicine, 181(6), 560–566. doi:10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00704
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessels, R., Dijcks, B., Soede, M., Gelderblom, G. J., & De Witte, L. (2003). Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview. Technology & Disability, 15(4), 231–238.
   Google Scholar
• Whiteneck, G. G., Harrison-Felix, C. L., Mellick, D. C., Brooks, C., Charlifue, S. B., & Gerhart, K. A. (2004). Quantifying environmental factors: A measure of physical, attitudinal, service, productivity, and policy barriers. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(8), 1324–1335. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2003.09.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widehammar, C., Pettersson, I., Janeslätt, G., & Hermansson, L. (2017). The influence of environment—Experiences of users of myoelectric arm prosthesis, a qualitative study. Prosthetics & Orthotics International. First published May 4, 1–9. doi:10.1177/0309364617704801
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L., Yan, T., You, L., & Li, K. (2015). Barriers to activity and participation for stroke survivors in rural China. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96(7), 1222–1228. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2015.01.024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar