References
- World Health Organization. Fact sheet - disability and health [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2020. [cited 2021 Apr 26]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health.
- Dicianno BE, Joseph J, Eckstein S, et al. The voice of the consumer: a survey of veterans and other users of assistive technology. Mil Med. 2018;183(11–12):e518–e525.
- Brandt Å, Samuelsson K, Töytäri O, et al. Activity and participation, quality of life and user satisfaction outcomes of environmental control systems and smart home technology: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(3):189–206.
- Jamwal R, Jarman HK, Roseingrave E, et al. Smart home and communication technology for people with disability: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;1–21.
- Werth O, Guhr N, Breitner M. Smart home in private households: status quo, discussion, and new insights. Int J Serv Sci Manag Eng Technol. 2020;11(4):122–136.
- Stirling P, Burgess G. How does the provision of advanced, predictive telecare and smart home technology for older people affect its outcomes? Technical Report from Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research. Cambridge (UK). 2020. [Cited 2021 Apr 26]; [73].
- Walthers K, Zimmer J. The utility of smart home technology within occupational therapy practice [Internet]. 2020. [Cited 2021 Apr 26]; [113]. Available from: https://commons.und.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1490&context=ot-grad
- Corbett CF, Combs EM, Wright PJ, et al. Virtual home assistant use and perceptions of usefulness by older adults and support person dyads. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3):1113.
- Smith E, Sumner P, Hedge C, et al. Smart-speaker technology and intellectual disabilities: agency and wellbeing. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;1–11. [Cited 2021 August 5]; [11].
- Schlomann A, Wahl HW, Zentel P, et al. Potential and pitfalls of digital voice assistants in older adults with and without intellectual disabilities: relevance of participatory design elements and ecologically valid field studies. Front Psychol. 2021;12:684012.
- Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, et al. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16(1):1–13.
- Turner-Stokes L. Goal attainment scaling (GAS) in rehabilitation: a practical guide. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23(4):362–370.
- Scherer MJ, editor. Assistive technology: matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association; 2002.
- MacLachlan M, Scherer MJ. Systems thinking for assistive technology: a commentary on the GREAT summit. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):492–496.
- 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.
- Larsson Ranada Å, Lidström H. Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process-a systematic review. Assist Technol. 2019;31(2):82–97.
- DiGiovine CP, Donahue M, Bahr P, et al. Rehabilitation engineers, technologists, and technicians: vital members of the assistive technology team. Assistive Technol. 2018;1–12.
- Pew Research Center. Disabled Americans less likely to use technology [Internet]. Pew Research Center. 2017. [cited 2021 Apr 30]. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/disabled-americans-are-less-likely-to-use-technology/.
- Nallam P, Bhandari S, Sanders J, et al. A question of access: exploring the perceived benefits and barriers of intelligent voice assistants for improving access to consumer health resources among low-income older adults. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2020;6:233372142098597. [cited 2021 August 5]; [9].
- Trajkova M, Martin-Hammond A. “Alexa is a Toy”: exploring older adults’ reasons for using, limiting, and abandoning echo. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; New York, NY. 2020. p. 1–13.