Mobility devices for children with physical disabilities: use, satisfaction and impact on participation

References

• Tieman BL, Palisano RJ, Gracely EJ, et al. Gross motor capability and performance of mobility in children with cerebral palsy: a comparison across home, school, and outdoors/community settings. Phys Ther. 2004;84(5):419–429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna SE, Rosenbaum PL, Bartlett DJ, et al. Stability and decline in gross motor function among children and youth with cerebral palsy aged 2 to 21 years. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2009;51(4):295–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams EN, Broughton NS, Menelaus MB. Age-related walking in children with spina bifida. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1999;41(7):446–449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Icelandic Health Insurance. Assistive equipments n.d. Available from: https://www.sjukra.is/lyf-og-hjalpartaeki/um-hjalpartaeki/.
   Google Scholar
• Rodby-Bousquet E, Hagglund G. Use of manual and powered wheelchair in children with cerebral palsy: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pediatr. 2010;10:59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson KL, Dudgeon B, Kuehn C, et al. Assistive technology use among adolescents and young adults with spina bifida. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(2):330–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earde PT, Praipruk A, Rodpradit P, et al. Facilitators and barriers to performing activities and participation in children with cerebral palsy: caregivers' perspective. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2018;30(1):27–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindsay S. Child and youth experiences and perspectives of cerebral palsy: a qualitative systematic review. Child Care Health Dev. 2016;42(2):153–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiart L, Darrah J, Cook A, et al. Evaluation of powered mobility use in home and community environments. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2003;23(2):59–75.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gjessing B, Jahnsen RB, Strand LI, et al. Adaptation for participation!. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(8):803–808.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Livingstone R, Field D. The child and family experience of power mobility: a qualitative synthesis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2015;57(4):317–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson Ranada A, Lidstrom H. Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process-a systematic review. Assist Technol. 2019;31(2):82–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desideri L, Stefanelli B, Bitelli C, et al. Satisfaction of users with assistive technology service delivery: an exploratory analysis of experiences of parents of children with physical and multiple disabilities. Dev Neurorehabil. 2016;19(4):255–266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desideri L, Bizzarri M, Bitelli C, et al. Implementing a routine outcome assessment procedure to evaluate the quality of assistive technology service delivery for children with physical or multiple disabilities: perceived effectiveness, social cost, and user satisfaction. Assist Technol. 2016;28(1):30–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology, QUEST version 2.0 (Björk Pálsdóttir, translated). [óbirt efni]. Reykjavik: Hjálpartaekjamiðstöð TR; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Wessels RD, Weiss‐Lambrou R, et al. An international content validation of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Occup Ther Int. 1999;6(3):159–175.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Item analysis of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 2000;12(2):96–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Wessels R, Weiss-Lambrou R, et al. Key dimensions of client satisfaction with assistive technology: a cross-validation of a Canadian measure in the Netherlands. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33(4):187–191.
   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
• Wessels RD, De Witte LP. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(6):267–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison F, Goodman A, van Sluijs EMF, on behalf the ICAD collaborators, et al. Weather and children’s physical activity; how and why do relationships vary between countries? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):74.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kharlova I, Deng WH, Mamen J, et al. The weather impact on physical activity of 6–12 year old children: a clustered study of the Health oriented pedagogical project (HOPP). Sports. 2020;8(1):9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlin A, Perchous C, Puggina A, et al. A life course examination of the physical environmental determinants of physical activity behaviour: a “determinants of diet and physical activity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review. PLoS One. 2017;18(8):e0182083.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• King G, Law M, Hanna S, et al. Predictors of the leisure and recreation participation of children with physical disabilities: a structural equation modeling analysis. Child Health Care. 2006;35(3):209–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lue YJ, Chen SS, Lu YM. Quality of life of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: from adolescence to young men. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(14):1408–1413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morales E, Lindsay S, Edwards G, et al. Addressing challenges for youths with mobility devices in winter conditions. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(1):21–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelsson K, Wressle E. User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: an important element in the rehabilitation process. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(7):551–558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Icelandic Health Insurance. Wheelchairs and walking aids 2018. Available from: https://www.sjukra.is/media/gatlistar-hjalpartaekja/Vorulisti-Hjolastolar-og-gonguhjalpartaeki-fra-1.des-2016-skjavaent-breyting-19112018.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• De Jonge DM, Rodger SA. Consumer-identified barriers and strategies for optimizing technology use in the workplace. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006;1(1-2):79–88.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dolan MJ, Henderson GI. Patient and equipment profile for wheelchair seating clinic provision. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9(2):136–143.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Irwin DE, Gross HE, Stucky BD, et al. Development of six PROMIS pediatrics proxy-report item banks. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson BN, Kaplan BJ, Crawford SG, et al. Reliability and validity of a parent questionnaire on childhood motor skills. Am J Occup Ther. 2000;54(5):484–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parette HP, Brotherson MJ. Family-centered and culturally responsive assistive technology decision making. Infant Young Child. 2004;17(4):355–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deutskens E, De Ruyter K, Wetzels M, et al. Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: an experimental study. Market Lett. 2004;15(1):21–36. Feb
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nulty DD. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assess Eval High Educ. 2008;33(3):301–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar