The effects of assistive technology service delivery processes and factors associated with positive outcomes – a systematic review

References

• Khasnabis C, Mirza Z, MacLachlan M. Opening the GATE to inclusion for people with disabilities. Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2229–2230.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Global Cooperation on Assistive Technology (GATE): World Health Organization; 2015. Available from: http://www.who.int/phi/implementation/assistive_technology/phi_gate/en/.
   Google Scholar
• Assistive Technology Act of 2004. PL 108-364, Section 3, 118 stat 1707. Ammendment to the Assistive Technology Act of 1998; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• de Witte L, Steel E, Gupta S, et al. Assistive technology provision: towards an international framework for assuring availability and accessibility of affordable high-quality assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist technol. 2018;13(5):467–472.
   Google Scholar
• Cook A, Polgar J. Assistive Technologies. Principles & Practices. 4th ed. St. Louis, Missouri, USA: Elsevier Mosby; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Shoemaker LL, Fuhrer MJ, et al. Classification of assistive technology services: implications for outcomes research. TAD. 2012;24(1):59–70.
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Scherer MJ, Borsci S. An ideal model of an assistive technology assessment and delivery process. TAD. 2014;26(1):27–38.
   Google Scholar
• Steel EJ, de Witte LP. Advances in European Assistive Technology service delivery and recommendations for further improvement. TAD. 2011;23(3):131–138.
   Google Scholar
• Ranada ÅL, Lidström H. Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process - a systematic review. Assist Technol. 2017;11:1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt Å, Christensen A, Grünberger P. How to accomplish the assistive technology service delivery process for adults in order to obtain the best outcomes - a literature review. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;217:469–477.
   Google Scholar
• Keeler L, Kirby RL, Parker K, et al. Effectiveness of the Wheelchair Skills Training Program: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14:391–409.
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, et al. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(4):294–302.
   Google Scholar
• Dijcks BPJ, de Witte L, Gelderblom GJ, et al. Non-use of assistive technology in The Netherlands: a non-issue. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006;1(1-2):97–102.
   Google Scholar
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement of reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.
   Google Scholar
• The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2014 Ed.. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• The Joanna Briggs Institute. JBI’s critical appraisal tools Joanna Briggs Institute; 2019. [cited 2019 Jul 29]. Available from: https://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html.
   Google Scholar
• The Joanna Briggs Institute. New JBI Levels of Evidence 2014. [cited 2019 Jan 28]. Available from: http://joannabriggs.org/jbi-approach.html#tabbed-nav=Levels-of-Evidence.
   Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Demers L, Fuhrer MJ, et al. Effects of a caregiver-inclusive assistive technology intervention: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):97.
   Google Scholar
• Schein RM, Schmeler MR, Holm MB, et al. Telerehabilitation wheeled mobility and seating assessments compared with in person. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(6):874–878.
   Google Scholar
• Kirby RL, Miller WC, Routhier F, et al. Effectiveness of a wheelchair skills training program for powered wheelchair users: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(11):2017–2026.e3.
   Google Scholar
• Schein RM, Schmeler MR, Saptono A, et al. Patient satisfaction with telerehabilitation assessments for wheeled mobility and seating. Assist Technol. 2010;22(4):215–222.
   Google Scholar
• Borg J, Larsson S, Östergren P-O, et al. User involvement in service delivery predicts outcomes of assistive technology use: a cross-sectional study in Bangladesh. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Borsci S. Providing assistive technology in Italy: the perceived delivery process quality as affecting abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(1):22–31.
   Google Scholar
• Sund T, Iwarsson S, Andersen MC, et al. Documentation of and satisfaction with the service delivery process of electric powered scooters among adult users in different national contexts. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(2):151–160.
   Google Scholar
• MacGillivray M, Sawatzky B, Miller W, et al. Goal satisfaction improves with individualized powered wheelchair skills training. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(6):558–561.
   Google Scholar
• Stenberg L, Mathiassen N-E, Jordansen IK, et al. Provision of assistive technology in the Nordic countries. Second edition. Vällingby, Sweden: NUH – Nordic Centre for Rehabilitation Technology; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Jannink MJ, Erren-Wolters CV, de Kort AC, et al. An electric scooter simulation program for training the driving skills of stroke patients with mobility problems: a pilot study. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2008;11(6):751–754.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston P, Currie L, Drynan D, et al. Getting it 'right': How collaborative relationships between people with disabilities and professionals can lead to the acquisition of needed assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9(5):421–431.
   Google Scholar
• Mirza M, Hammel J. Consumer-directed goal planning in the delivery of assistive technology services for people who are ageing with intellectual disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2009;22(5):445–457.
   Google Scholar
• Martin JK, Martin LG, Stumbo NJ, et al. The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(3):225–242.
   Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Demers L, Fuhrer MJ, et al. Effects of an assistive technology intervention on older adults with disabilities and their informal caregivers: an exploratory randomized controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;92(4):297–306.
   Google Scholar
• Lawton M. Competence, environmental press, and the adaptation of older people In: Lawton M, Windley P, Byertss T, editors. Aging and the Environment: Theoretical Approaches. New York: Springer; 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer M. Matching Person and Technology. Webster, New York: Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, editor. Assistive Technology: Matching Device and Consumer for Successful Rehabilitation. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Assosciation; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Federici S, editors. Assistive Technology Handbook. Second Edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen EM, Jensen L, Schøtt I, Bindslev N, editors. Metodebog i hjaelpemiddelformidling (In Danish, Textbook on assistive technology service delivery). Copenhagen: Munksgaard Danmark; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• De Jonge D, Hoyle M, Layton N, et al. The occupational therapist: enabling activities and participation using assistive technology. In: Federici S, Scherer MJ, editors. Assistive Technology Assessment Handbook Second Edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–72.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. World Report on Disability. Geneva: WHO; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Rohwerder B. Assistive technologies in developing countries. K4D Helpdesk Report. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies; 2018.
   Google Scholar