Assessing the use of co-design to produce bespoke assistive technology solutions within a current healthcare service: a service evaluation

References

• Khasnabis C, Mirza Z, Maclachlan M. Opening the GATE to inclusion for people with disabilities. Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2229–2230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNicholl A, Casey H, Desmond D, et al. The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;23:1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrilahij A, Boll T. A qualitative metasynthesis of reasons for the use or nonuse of assistive technologies in the aging population. GeroPsych. 2019;32(2):79–92.
   Google Scholar
• Mitzner TL, Boron JB, Fausset CB, et al. Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Comput Human Behav. 2010;26(6):1710–1721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madara Marasinghe K. Assistive technologies in reducing caregiver burden among informal caregivers of older adults: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(5):353–360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Ommeren AL, Smulders LC, Prange-Lasonder GB, et al. Assistive technology for the upper extremities after stroke: systematic review of users' needs. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;5(2):e10510.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lansley P, McCreadie C, Tinker A. Can adapting the homes of older people and providing assistive technology pay its way? Age Ageing. 2004;33(6):571–576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. Assistive Technology: World Health Organisation; 2018 [cited 2019 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/assistive-technology.
   Google Scholar
• Howard J, Fisher Z, Kemp AH, et al. Exploring the barriers to using assistive technology for individuals with chronic conditions: a meta-synthesis review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;1–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robinson L, Gibson G, Kingston A, et al. Assistive technologies in caring for the oldest old: a review of current practice and future directions. Aging Health. 2013;9(4):365–375.
   Google Scholar
• Orejuela-Zapata JF, Rodriguez S, Ramirez GL. Self-Help devices for quadriplegic population: a systematic literature review. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019;27(4):692–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alqahtani S, Joseph J, Dicianno B, et al. Stakeholder perspectives on research and development priorities for mobility assistive-technology: a literature review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders EBN, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign. 2008;4(1):5–18.
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Borsci S, Kurosu M, et al. Computer systems experiences of users with and without disabilities: an evaluation guide for professionals. FL, USA: CRC Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Vines J, Clarke R, Wright P, et al. Configuring participation: on how we involve people in design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems.; Paris, France: Association for Computing Machinery; 2013. p. 429–438.
   Google Scholar
• Hakobyan L, Lumsden J, O'Sullivan D. Older adults with AMD as Co-Designers of an assistive mobile application. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction. 2014;6(1):54–70.
   Google Scholar
• De Couvreur L, Goossens R. Design for (every)one: co-creation as a bridge between universal design and rehabilitation engineering. CoDesign. 2011;7(2):107–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos AVF, Silveira ZC. At-d8sign: methodology to support development of assistive devices focused on user-centered design and 3D technologies. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng. 2020;42(5):260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gherardini F, Mascia MT, Bettelli V, et al. A Co-Design method for the additive manufacturing of customised assistive devices for hand pathologies. JID. 2019;22(1):21–37.
   Google Scholar
• Day SJ, Riley SP. Utilising three-dimensional printing techniques when providing unique assistive devices: a case report. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018;42(1):45–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee KH, Kim DK, Cha YH, et al. Personalized assistive device manufactured by 3D modelling and printing techniques. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(5):526–531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz JK, Fermin A, Fine K, et al. Methodology and feasibility of a 3D printed assistive technology intervention. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(2):141–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorsen R, Bortot F, Caracciolo A. From patient to maker - a case study of co-designing an assistive device using 3D printing. Assist Technol. 2019;16:1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, et al. SQUIRE 2.0 (standards for QUality improvement reporting excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(12):986–992.
   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
• 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
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 20): an overview of recent progress. TAD. 2002;14(3):101–105. 01/01;
   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
• Jutai J, Day H. Psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS). TAD. 2002;14(3):107–111.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke V, Braun V. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches. Couns Psychother Res. 2021;21(1):37–47. 10/18;
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher Z, Galloghly E, Boglo E, et al. Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Kemp A, Arias JA, Fisher Z. Social ties, health and wellbeing: a literature review and model. In: Ibáñez A, Sedeño LAG, editors. Neuroscience and social science: the missing link. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Mead J, Fisher Z, Lowri W, et al. Rethinking wellbeing: toward a more ethical science of wellbeing that considers current and future generations. Authorea. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Realpe A, Wallace LM. What is co-production? London: The Health Foundation; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Federici S. Assistive technology assessment handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar