Psychosocial impact of mobility assistive technology on people with neurological conditions

References

• World Health Organization. International classification of impairment, disabilities, and hándicaps; a manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Chiou IL, Burnett CN. Values of activities of daily living. A survey of stroke patients and their home therapists. Phys Ther. 1985;65(6):901–906.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandervelde L, Van den Bergh PY, Goemans N, et al. Activity limitations in patients with neuromuscular disorders: a responsiveness study of the ACTIVLIM questionnaire. Neuromusc Disord. 2009;19(2):99–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salminen AL, Brandt Å, Samuelsson K, et al. Mobility devices to promote activity and participation: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(9):697–706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertrand K, Raymond MH, Miller WC, et al. Walking aids for enabling activity and participation: a systematic review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96(12):894–903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blake DJ, Bodine C. An overview of assistive technology for persons with multiple sclerosis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002;39(2):299–312.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dirette DK. Progressive neurological disorders In: Hansen RA, Atchison B, editors. Conditions in occupationaltherapy: effect on occupational performance. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000. p. 347–359.
   Google Scholar
• Pousada Garcia T, Groba González B, Nieto Rivero L, et al. Exploring the psychosocial impact of wheelchair and contextual factors on quality of life of people with neuromuscular disorders. Assist Technol. 2015;27:246–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw G, Taylor SJ. A survey of wheelchair seating problems of the institutionalized elderly. Assist Technol. 1991;3(1):5–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Allen SM, Foster A, Berg K. Receiving help at home: the interplay of human and technological assistance. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2001;56(6):S374–S382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dozono K, Hachisuka A, Wada F, et al. Peripheral neuropathies in nonparetic upper extremities of stroke patients induced by excessive use of a walking device. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;24(8):1841–1847.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler K, Schweikert-Stary T, Lubin I. Altered mobility In: Lubkin IM, Larsen PD, editors. Chronic illness: impact and interventions. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, et al. Treatment theory, intervention specification, and treatment fidelity in assistive technology outcomes research. Assist Technol^®. 2010;22(3):129–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J, Campbell KA. Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(1-3):31–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Ladak N, Schuller R, et al. Outcomes measurement of assistive technologies: an institutional case study. Assist Technol J. 1996;8(2):110–120.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lenker JA, Paquet VL. A new conceptual model for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol. 2004;16(1):1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray DB, Hendershot GE. The ICIDH-2: developments for a new era of outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:S10–S14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Jutai J. Assistive technology outcomes research and clinical practice: What role for ICF. 8th North American Collaborating Center Conference on ICF; 2002 Jun 2-4; Toronto.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly-Hayes M, Paige C. Assessment and psychologic factors in stroke rehabilitation. Neurology. 1995;45:29–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pousada T. The psychosocial impact of wheelchair in life of people with neuromuscular disorders. Thesis. University of A Coruna; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Laufer Y. The use of walking aids in the rehabilitation of stroke patients. Rev Clin Gerontol. 2004;14(2):137–144.
   Google Scholar
• Kader M, Jonasson SB, Iwarsson S, et al. Mobility device use in people with Parkinson's disease: a 3-year follow-up study. Acta Neurol Scand. 2018;138(1):70–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ato M, López JJ, Benavente A. Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. [A classification system of research designs in psychology] analesps. Anales de Psicología. 2013;29(3):1038–1059.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreyra AY, De Longhi AL. Metodología de la Investigación I. [Research Methodology I.] Bogotá: Editorial Brujas; 2014. p. 91–105.
   Google Scholar
• Amon J. Estadística para Psicólogos I. Estadística descriptiva. [Statistics for Psychologists I. Descriptive statistics]. Madrid: Ed Pirámide; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Morillo-Torrecilla J, Martínez-Garrido C. Análisis de datos cuantitativos con SPSS en investigación socioeducativa. [Analysis of data quantitative with SPSS in socioeducational research] Madrid: Ed Universidad Autónoma Madrid; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J. PIADS: the psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale. Toronto: Authors. 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Quinteiro MV. Impacto de las Ayudas técnicas de acceso al ordenador en el aprendizaje de materias informáticas mediante cursos de enseñanza asistida por ordenador (E.A.O.) de alumnos con discapacidad en los miembros superiores. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad Pontificia de Comillas. Madrid. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Woolrich W, Campbell K, et al. User-caregiver agreement on perceived Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices. Proceedings of the RESNA; 2000 Jun 28–Jul 2; Orlando. p. 328–330.
   Google Scholar
• Global Regulation. Ley 39/2006 [Law 39/2006], de 14 de diciembre, de Promoción de la Autonomía Personal y Atención a las personas en situación de dependencia. [Promotion of Personal Autonomy and Attention to people in situations of dependency]«BOE» núm. 299, de 15 de diciembre de 2006, p. 44142–44156.
   Google Scholar
• Boström K, Nätterlund BS, Ahlström G. Sickness impact in people with muscular dystrophy: a longitudinal study over 10 years. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(6):686–694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. Healthy ageing: a challenge for Europe. Stockolm, Sweden: Swedish National Institute for Public Health; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Iezzoni LI, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, et al. Mobility difficulties are not only a problem of old age. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(4):235–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff JL, Agree EM, Kasper JD. Wheelchairs, walkers, and canes: what does Medicare pay for, and who benefits? Health Affairs. 2005;24(4):1140–1149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith R, Quine S, Anderson J, et al. Assistive devices: self-reported use by older people in Victoria. Aust Health Rev. 2002;25(4):169–177.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Devitt R, Chau B, Jutai JW. The effect of wheelchair use on the quality of life of persons with multiple sclerosis. Occup Ther Health Care. 2004;17(3-4):63–79.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Evans S, Neophytou C, De Souza L, et al. Young people’s experiences using electric powered indoor–outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOCs): potential for enhancing users’ development? Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(16):1281–1294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, et al. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(1-3):21–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gryfe P, Jutai J. Assistive technologies: clients’ perceptions of impact on quality of life. Rehabil Commun Care Manag. 1998;7:26–30.
   Google Scholar
• Miles-Tapping C, MacDonald LJ. Lifestyle implications of power mobility. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 1995;12(4):31–49.
   Google Scholar
• Carver J, Ganus A, Ivey JM, et al. The impact of mobility assistive technology devices on participation for individuals with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016; 11(6):468–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batting H, Maki BE. Assistive devices for balance and mobility: benefits, demands, and adverse consequences. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:134–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brännström H, Bäckman M, Fischer RS. Walking on the edge: meanings of living in an ageing body and using a walker in everyday life—a phenomenological hermeneutic study. Int J Older People Nurs. 2013;8(2):116–122.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wressle E, Samuelsson K. User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scand J Occup Ther. 2004;11(3):143–150.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt Å. Outcomes of rollator and powered wheelchair interventions. User satisfaction and participation [Dissertation]. Lund, Sweden: Lund University; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Polgar JM. Assistive technologies-e-book: principles and practice. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Cowan RE, Fregly BJ, Boninger ML, et al. Recent trends in assistive technology for mobility. J NeuroEng Rehabil. 2012; 9:20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoenig H, Giacobbi P, Levy CE. Methodological challenges confronting researchers of wheeled mobility aids and other assistive technologies. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(3):159–168.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lauer A, Longenecker RK, Smith RO. ATOMS Project Technical Report—Factors in Assistive Technology Device Abandonment: Replacing “Abandonment” with “Discontinuance.” 2006. Available from: http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/archive/technicalreports/tr-discontinuance.html
   Google Scholar
• Pippin K, Femie GR. Designing devices that are acceptable to the frail elderly: a new understanding based upon how older people perceive a walker. Technol Disabil. 1997;7(1-2):93–102.
   Google Scholar