Information and communication technology-based assistive technology to compensate for impaired cognition in everyday life: a systematic review

References

• World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Gan C, Schuller R. Family system outcome following acquired brain injury: clinical and research perspectives. Brain Inj. 2002;16(4):311–322.
   Google Scholar
• Nam H-J, Kim H. How assistive devices affect activities of daily living and cognitive functions of people with brain injury: a meta-analysis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(3):305–311.
   Google Scholar
• Söderback I. The occupational therapist manages the client’s adaptations. In: Söderback I, editor. International handbook of occupational therapy interventions. 2nd ed. Cham: Springer; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Global Cooperation on Assistive Technology - About us: World Health Organization; 2014. Available from: https://www.who.int/phi/implementation/assistive_technology/phi_gate/en/
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Guidelines on the provision of Manual Wheelchairs in less resourced settings. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
   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
• Ranada ÅL, Lidström H. Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process - a systematic review. Assistive Technol. 2019;31(2):82–16.
   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
• Boman IL, Tham K, Granqvist A, et al. Using electronic aids to daily living after acquired brain injury: a study of the learning process and the usability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(1):23–33.
   Google Scholar
• de Joode E, van Heugten C, Verhey F, et al. Efficacy and usability of assistive technology for patients with cognitive deficits: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24(8):701–714.
   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
• 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
• Perelmutter B, McGregor K, Gordon K. Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: an evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis. Comput Educ. 2017;114:139–163.
   Google Scholar
• Savage MN, Taber-Doughty T. Self-operated prompting systems for individuals with intellectual disability: a meta-analysis of single subject research. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2017;42(3):249–258.
   Google Scholar
• Hong ER, Gong L-Y, Ninci J, et al. A meta-analysis of single-case research on the use of tabletmediated interventions for persons with ASD. Res Dev Disabil. 2017;70:198–214.
   Google Scholar
• Chen JL, Leader G, Sung C, et al. Trends in employment for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: a review of the research literature. Rev J Autism Dev Disord. 2015;2(2):115–127.
   Google Scholar
• Charters E, Gillett L, Simpson G. Efficacy of electronic portable assistive devices for people with acquired brain injury: a systematic review. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2015;25(1):82–121.
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson M, Cullen B, McGee-Lennon M, et al. The efficacy of prosthetic technology for people with memory impairments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2014;24(3-4):419–444.
   Google Scholar
• McDaniel M, Einstein G. Prospective memory: an overview and synthesis of an emerging field. Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications Ltd.; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson BA, Emslie HC, Quirk K, et al. Reducing everyday memory and planning problems by means of a paging system. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;70(4):477–482.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin R, Lincoln N, das Nair R, et al. External memory aids for memory problems in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2017;27(8):1081–1102.
   Google Scholar
• Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.
   Google Scholar
• Smith ER, Broughton M, Baker R, et al. Memory and communication support in dementia: research-based strategies for caregivers. Int Psychogeriatr. 2011;23(2):256–263.
   Google Scholar
• The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2014 edition. Adelaide (Australia): The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• De Joode E, Van Heugten C, Verhey F, et al. Effectiveness of an electronic cognitive aid in patients with acquired brain injury: a multicentre randomised parallel-group study. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2013;23(1):133–156.
   Google Scholar
• Evald L. Prospective memory rehabilitation using smartphones in patients with TBI. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(19):2250–2259.
   Google Scholar
• Gentry T, Wallace J, Kvarfordt C, et al. Personal digital assistants as cognitive aids for individuals with severe traumatic brain injury: a community-based trial. Brain Injury. 2008;22(1):19–24.
   Google Scholar
• Gentry T, Wallace J, Kvarfordt C, et al. Personal digital assistants as cognitive aids for high school students with autism: results of a community-based trial. J Vocat Rehabil. 2010;32(2):101–107.,
   Google Scholar
• Gentry T, Kriner R, Sima A, et al. Reducing the need for personal supports among workers with autism using an iPod Touch as an assistive technology: delayed randomized control trial. J Autism Dev Disord. 2015;45(3):669–684.
   Google Scholar
• Gracey F, Fish JE, Greenfield E, et al. A randomized controlled trial of assisted intention monitoring for the rehabilitation of executive impairments following acquired brain injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(4):323–333.
   Google Scholar
• Janeslatt G, Kottorp A, Granlund M. Evaluating intervention using time aids in children with disabilities. Scand J Occup Therapy. 2014;21(3):181–190.
   Google Scholar
• Lannin N, Carr B, Allaous J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of handheld computers for improving everyday memory functioning in patients with memory impairments after acquired brain injury. Clin Rehabil. 2014;28(5):470–481.
   Google Scholar
• Lindstedt H, Umb-Carlsson O. Cognitive assistive technology and professional support in everyday life for adults with ADHD. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(5):402–408.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald A, Haslam C, Yates P, et al. Google Calendar: a new memory aid to compensate for prospective memory deficits following acquired brain injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2011;21(6):784–807.
   Google Scholar
• OʼNeill B, Best C, Oʼneill L, et al. Efficacy of a micro-prompting technology in reducing support needed by people with severe acquired brain injury in activities of daily living: a randomized control trial. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2018;33(5):E33–e41.
   Google Scholar
• Wennberg B, Janeslätt G, Kjellberg A, et al. Effectiveness of time‑related interventions in children with ADHD aged 9–15 years: a randomized controlled study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018;27(3):329–342.
   Google Scholar
• Héroux M. Cohen’s d: how to interpret it? 2017. Available from: https://scientificallysound.org/2017/07/27/cohens-d-how-interpretation/
   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
• Frank Lopresti E, Mihailidis A, Kirsch N. Assistive technology for cognitive rehabilitation: state of the art. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2004;14(1-2):5–39.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt A, Hansen EM, Christensen JR. The effects of assistive technology service delivery processes and factors associated with positive outcomes - a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;:1–14. DOI:10.1080/17483107.2019.1682067
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
   Google Scholar