Co-construction of an Internet-based intervention for older assistive technology users and their family caregivers: stakeholders’ perceptions

References

• United Nations Department of E, Social Affairs Population D. World Population Ageing. 2013;2013:114–114.
   Google Scholar
• Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. Federal disability report 2011 – Seniors with disabilities. Gatineau. 2011;1–78.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. World report on disability. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Institute for Health Information. Health Care in Canada: 2011. A Focus on Seniors and Aging. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Jull J. Seniors caring for seniors: examining the literature on injuries and contributing factors affecting the health and well-being of older adult caregivers. Provided to the Public Health Agency of Canada. Prepared on behalf of the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapist. 2010;1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Walker AJ, Pratt CC, Eddy L. Informal caregiving to aging family members: a critical review. Fam Relat. 1995;44:402–411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AARP & National Alliance for Caregiving. Caregiving in the U.S. 2015. 2015; (June):1–87.
   Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Demers L, Fuhrer M, et al. How assistive technology use by individuals with disabilities impacts their caregivers a systematic review of the research evidence. Am J Phys Med Rehab. 2012;91:984–998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glueckauf RL, Ketterson TU, Loomis JS, et al. Online support and education for dementia caregivers: overview, utilization, and initial program evaluation. Telemed J e-Health. 2004;10:223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paré G, Sicotte C. Les technologies de l’information et la transformation de l’offre de soins. Montréal: Cahier Du GReSI. 2004;4–4.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Atlas of eHealth country profiles. The Use of eHealth in Support of Universal Health Coverage. Based on the findings of the third global survey on eHealth 2015. Geneva: 2016;1–392.
   Google Scholar
• Kohn L. To err is human: an interview with the Institute of Medicine's Linda Kohn. J Qual Improv. 2000;26:227–234.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cristancho-Lacroix V, Wrobel J, Cantegreil-Kallen I, et al. A web-based psychoeducational program for informal caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17:e117–e114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauchamp N, Irvine AB, Seeley J, et al. Worksite-based internet multimedia program for family caregivers of persons with dementia. Gerontologist. 2005;45:793–801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blom MM, Zarit SH, Groot Zwaaftink RBM, et al. Effectiveness of an internet intervention for family caregivers of people with dementia: results of a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0116622–e0116627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chih M-Y, DuBenske LL, Hawkins RP, et al. Communicating advanced cancer patients’ symptoms via the internet: a pooled analysis of two randomized trials examining caregiver preparedness, physical burden, and negative mood. Palliat Med. 2013;27:533–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DuBenske LL, Gustafson DH, Namkoong K, et al. CHESS improves cancer caregivers' burden and mood: results of an eHealth RCT. Health psychology: official journal of the Division of Health Psychology. Am Psychol Assoc. 2014;33:1261–1272.
   Google Scholar
• Namkoong K, DuBenske LL, Shaw BR, et al. Creating a bond between caregivers online: effect on caregivers’ coping strategies. J Health Commun. 2012;17:125–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AARP. Caregivers & Technology: What They Want and Need. 2016
   Google Scholar
• Auger C, Miller WC, Jutai JW, et al. Development and feasibility of an automated call monitoring intervention for older wheelchair users: the MOvIT project. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:386–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auger C, Readman J, Dominique A, et al. Impact d’un suivi systématique par appels automatisés sur l’adhésion aux recommandations ergothérapiques suite à l’attributio d’un fauteuil roulant chez des utilisateurs de plus de 50 ans. [Impact of systematic monitoring with computerized calls on adherence to OT recommendations following wheelchair provision for users over 50 years of age]. Revue Francophone de Recherche en Ergothérapie. Revue Francophone De Recherche En Ergothérapie. 2015;1:5–21.
   Google Scholar
• Auger C, Tamblyn R, Miller WC, et al. The MOvIT project phase I: designing a mobility device monitoring intervention with end-users and healthcare providers. 2011. In: Everyday Technology for Independence and Care: AAATE 2011. IOS Press Assistive Technology Research Series: 1018–1025.
   Google Scholar
• Abras C, Maloney-Krichmar D, Preece J. User-centered design. In: Bainbridge W, editor. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2004. p. 445–456.
   Google Scholar
• De Vito Dabbs A, Myers BA, Mc Curry KR, et al. User-centered design and interactive health technologies for patients. Comput Inform Nurs. 2009;27:175–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson CM, Johnson TR, Zhang J. A user-centered framework for redesigning health care interfaces. J Biomed Inform. 2005;38:75–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mao J-Y, Vredenburg K, Smith PW, et al. The state of user-centered design practice. Commun Acm. 2005;48:105–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guay C, Auger C, Demers L, et al. Components and outcomes of internet-based interventions for caregivers of older adults: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortin M-F, Gagnon J. Fondements et étapes du processus de recherche, 3e edition. Méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives. Chenelière ed. Montréal. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, et al. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015;42:533–544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auger C, Demers L, Gélinas I, et al. Reliability and validity of telephone administration of the wheelchair outcome measure for middle-aged and older users of power mobility devices. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42:574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paillé P, Mucchielli A. L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales, 2e édition. Armand Colin ed. Paris 2008. (U: Sciences humaines & sociales).
   Google Scholar
• Sicotte C, Paré G, Moreault M-P, et al. A risk assessment of two interorganizational clinical information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:557–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sicotte C, Paré G, Paccioni A, et al. Analyse du risque associé au déploiement d'un dossier patient partageable: évaluation du Projet vitrine: Dossier Patient Partageable: l'expérimentation d'un dossier patient électronique au sein d'un réseau de soins intégrés. Montréal: GRIS, Université de Montréal; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Cuva A. Connecting the dots: a review of traversing the uncharted arena of computer assisted qualitative data analysis software: mapping out QDA Miner 4. 1 as a First-Time User. The Qualitative Reportitative Report. 2014;19:1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Maren J-M. Méthodes de recherche pour l‘éducation. Presses de l‘Université de Montréal et de Boeck. 1996:1–502
   Google Scholar
• Baribeau C. L’instrumentation dans la collecte de données. Le journal de bord du chercheur. Recherches Qualitatives. 2005; special edition:98–114.
   Google Scholar
• Bellemare M, Marier M, Allard D. Le journal de bord: un outil pour l’intervention et la recherche en ergonomie. Les Transformations Du Travail, Enjeux Pour L’ergonomie: Actes Du Congrès SELF-ACE. 2001;3:58–62.
   Google Scholar
• Sicotte C, Paré G. Success in health information exchange projects: solving the implementation puzzle. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1159–1165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Paquet VL. A new conceptual model for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol. 2004;16:1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roelands M, Van Oost P, Depoorter A, et al. 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
• Cook AM, Polgar JM. Assistive technologies: principles and practice. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Copley J, Turpin M, Brosnan J, et al. Understanding and negotiating: reasoning processes used by an occupational therapist to individualize intervention decisions for people with upper limb hypertonicity. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30:1486–1498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, et al. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:1243–1251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giesbrecht E. Application of the human activity assistive technology model for occupational therapy research. Aust Occup Ther J. 2013;60:230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Paquet VL. A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technol. 2003;15:1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federici S, Borsci S. Function or feelings: factors in abandonment of assistive devices. Technol Disabil. 2016;11:22.
   Google Scholar
• Samsa GP, Matchar DB. How strong is the relationship between functional status and quality of life among persons with stroke?. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41:279–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riemer RML, Wacker RR. Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. J Rehabil. 2000;66:44–50.
   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
• Desideri L, Trioschi D, Agusto R, et al. The provision of powered mobility devices in Italy: linking process with outcomes. Technologies. 2016;4:31–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Hoag E, Higgins R, et al. Stakeholders' perspectives related to the development of a scooter training program. Disabil Rehabil Assistive Technol. 2014;3107:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Sakakibara BM, Miller WC, Souza M, et al. Wheelchair skills training to improve confidence with using a manual wheelchair among older adults: a pilot study. Archiv Phys Med Rehabil. 2013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best KL, Routhier F, Miller WC. A description of manual wheelchair skills training: current practices in Canadian rehabilitation centers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10:393–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ducharme F, Lévesque L, Lachance L, et al. Older husbands as caregivers. factors associated with health and the intention to end home caregiving. Res Aging. 2007;29:3–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeiss A, Gallagher-Thompson D, Lovett S, et al. Self-efficacy as a mediator of caregiver coping: development and testing of an assessment model. J Clin Geropsychol. 1999;5:221–230.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai J, et al. A conceptual framework of outcomes for caregivers of assistive technology users. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88:645–655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission de l'éthique en science et en technologie. La télésanté clinique au Québec: un regard éthique. Québec. 2014;1–132.
   Google Scholar
• Agence d’évaluation des technologies et des modes d’interventions en santé. Télésanté: lignes directricescliniques et normes technologiques en téléréadaptation. 2006;1–74.
   Google Scholar
• CEFRIO. Portait numérique des foyers québécois. NETendances. 2016;7:1–19.
   Google Scholar
• File T, Ryan C. Computer and Internet use in the United States: 2013. American Community Survey Reports: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. U.S. Census BUREAU. 2014;1–16.
   Google Scholar
• CEFRIO. Compétences numériques des adultes québécois. NETendances. 2016;7:1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Industry Canada. Digital Canada 150 2.0. Ottawa: Government of Canada. 2015; 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Alami H, Gagnon M-P, Fortin J-P. Telehealth in Light of Cloud Computing: Clinical, Technological, Regulatory and Policy Issues. J Int Soc Telemed eHealth. 2016;4:5–5.
   Google Scholar
• Fortin J-P, Gagnon M-P, Lamothe L. Evaluation of health care information and communication technologies: a framework to support decision-making. Proc IADIS Int Confer e-Soc. 2004;2004:517–525.
   Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Miller W. The wheelchair procurement process: perspectives of clients and prescribers. Can J Occup Ther. 2008;75:167–175.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: a decade later. Health Educ Quarterly. 1984;11:1–47.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rosenstock IMIM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Educ Quarterly. 1988;15:175–183.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Falardeau M, Durand MJ. Negotiation-centred versus client-centred: which approach should be used?. Can J Occup Ther. 2002;69:135–142.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fischer SH, David D, Crotty BH, et al. Acceptance and use of health information technology by community-dwelling elders. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83:624–635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee C, Coughlin JF. Perspective: older adults' adoption of technology: an integrated approach to identifying determinants and barriers. J Prod Innov Manag. 2015;32:747–759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karahasanović A, Brandtzaeg PB, Heim J, et al. Co-creation and user-generated content–elderly people’s user requirements. Comput Human Behav. 2009;25:655–678.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peine A, Neven L. Social-structural lag revisited. Gerontechnology. 2011;10:129–139.
   Google Scholar
• Tikkanen V, Botero Cabrena A. Using video to support co-design of information and communication technologies. Observatorio J. 2008;2:119–137.
   Google Scholar