Starting from the needs: what are the appropriate sources to co-create innovative solutions for persons with disabilities?

References

• International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Michelsen SI, Flachs EM, Damsgaard MT, et al. Original article european study of frequency of participation of adolescents with and without cerebral palsy. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2014;18(3):282–294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taheri A, Perry A, Minnes P. Examining the social participation of children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorder in relation to peers. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2016;60(5):435–443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lersilp S, Putthinoi S, Lersilp T. Facilitators and barriers of assistive technology and learning environment for children with special needs. Occup Ther Int. 2018;2018:3705946.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berardi A, Smith EM, Miller WC. Assistive technology use and unmet need in Canada. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(8):851–856.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brochard S, Newman CJ. The need for innovation in participation in childhood disability. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2019;61(5):501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Depasse JW, Carroll R, Ippolito A, et al. Less noise, more hacking: How to deploy principles from MIT’s hacking medicine to accelerate health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(3):260–264.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silver JK, Binder DS, Zubcevik N, et al. Healthcare hackathons provide educational and innovation opportunities: a case study and best practice recommendations. J Med Syst. 2016;40(7):177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-016-0532-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chowdhury J. Hacking health: bottom-up innovation for healthcare. Technol Innov Manag Rev. 2012;2(7):31–35.
   Google Scholar
• Olson KR, Walsh M, Garg P, et al. Health hackathons: theatre or substance? A survey assessment of outcomes from healthcare-focused hackathons in three countries. BMJ Innov. 2017;3(1):37–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lyndon MP, Cassidy MP, Celi LA, et al. Hacking hackathons: preparing the next generation for the multidisciplinary world of healthcare technology. Int J Med Inform. 2018;112:1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang JK, Roy SK, Barry M, et al. Institutionalizing healthcare hackathons to promote diversity in collaboration in medicine. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Doran GT. There’s a SMART way to write management’s goals and objectives. Manage Rev. 1981;70:35–36.
   Google Scholar
• Botti S, McGill AL. The locus of choice: personal causality and satisfaction with hedonic and utilitarian decisions. J Consum Res. 2011;37(6):1065–1078.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xian Y, O’Brien EC, Fonarow GC, et al. Patient-Centered research into outcomes stroke patients prefer and effectiveness research: Implementing the patient-driven research paradigm to aid decision making in stroke care. Am Heart J. 2015;170(1):36–45.e11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross PH, Bailes AF, Horn SD, cerebral palsy research network, et al. Setting a patient-centered research agenda for cerebral palsy: a participatory action research initiative. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2018;60(12):1278–1284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjorth E, Kreicbergs U, Sejersen T, et al. Parents’ advice to healthcare professionals working with children who have spinal muscular atrophy. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2018;22(1):128–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allard A, Fellowes A, Shilling V, et al. Key health outcomes for children and young people with neurodisability: qualitative research with young people and parents. BMJ Open. 2014;4(4):e004611–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rat C, Tudrej B, Kinouani S, et al. Encadrement réglementaire des recherches en médecine générale regulatory framework for research in general practice. Excercer. 2017;135:327–334.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson F. Conducting focus groups with children and young people: strategies for success. J Res Nurs. 2007;12(5):473–483.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan M, Gibbs S, Maxwell K, et al. Hearing children’s voices: methodological issues in conducting focus groups with children aged 7-11 years. Qual Res. 2002;2(1):5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Krueger R A, Casey M A. Designing and Conducting Focus Group Interviews. Social Analysis, Selected Tools and Techniques. Washington: The World Bank; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Bazzano AN, Martin J, Hicks E, et al. Human-centred design in global health: a scoping review of applications and contexts. PloS One. 2017;12(11):e0186744–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendricks S, Conrad N, Douglas TS, et al. A modified stakeholder participation assessment framework for design thinking in health innovation. Healthc (Amst). 2018;6(3):191–196.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roberts JP, Fisher TR, Trowbridge MJ, et al. A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation. Healthc (Amst). 2016;4(1):11–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robins EM. An Instructional Approach to Writing SMART Goals, Annual Technology, Colleges, and Community Worldwide Online Conference. 2014. [04]; [online].
   Google Scholar
• Lawlor KB. Smart goals: how the application of smart goals can contribute to achievement of student learning outcomes. J Dev Bus Simul Exp Learn. 2012;39:259–267.
   Google Scholar
• Leunis S, Vandecruys M, Cornelissen V, et al. Physical activity behaviour in solid organ transplant recipients: proposal of theory-driven physical activity interventions. Kidney Dial. 2022;2(2):298–329.
   Google Scholar
• Bovend’Eerdt TJH, Botell RE, Wade DT. Writing SMART rehabilitation goals and achieving goal attainment scaling: a practical guide. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23(4):352–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holthe IL, Rohrer-Baumgartner N, Svendsen EJ. Feasibility and acceptability of a complex telerehabilitation intervention for pediatric acquired brain injury: the child in context intervention (CICI). J Clin Med. 2022;11:1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlgren L. Idenifying latent needs: towards a competence perspective on attractive quality criterion. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. 2013;24(11-12):1347–1363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;140:5–55.
   Google Scholar
• Korstjens I, Moser A. Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 2: Context, research questions and designs. Eur J Gen Pract. 2017;23(1):274–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giacomini MK, Cook DJ, Group E-BMW. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health CareB. What are the results and how do they help me care for my patients? JAMA. 2000;284:478–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graneheim UH, Lindgren BM, Lundman B. Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: a discussion paper. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;56:29–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moser A, Korstjens I. Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: sampling, data collection and analysis. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018;24(1):9–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinhardt F, Ullenhag A, Jahnsen R, et al. Perceived facilitators and barriers for participation in leisure activities in children with disabilities: perspectives of children, parents and professionals. Scand J Occup Ther. 2021;28(2):121–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnsson G, Kerslake R, Crook S, et al. Investigation of training and support needs in rural and remote disability and mainstream service providers: implications for an online training model. Aust Health Rev. 2017;41(6):693–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tassé MJ, Wagner JB, Kim M. Using technology and remote support services to promote independent living of adults with intellectual disability and related developmental disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2020;33(3):640–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindsay S. Accessible and inclusive transportation for youth with disabilities: exploring innovative solutions. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42(8):1131–1140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang IC, Sugden D, Beveridge S. Assistive devices and cerebral palsy: the use of assistive devices at school by children with cerebral palsy. Child Care Health Dev. 2009;35(5):698–708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey S, Boddy K, Briscoe S, et al. Involving disabled children and young people as partners in research: a systematic review. Child Care Health Dev. 2015;41(4):505–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benton L, Johnson H. Widening participation in technology design: a review of the involvement of children with special educational needs and disabilities. Int J Child-Computer Interact. 2015;3-4:23–40.
   Google Scholar
• Bier N, Sablier J, Briand C, et al. Special issue on technology and neuropsychological rehabilitation: overview and reflections on ways to conduct future studies and support clinical practice. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2018;28(5):864–877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151–1166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tassinari R. Pratique de l’analyse fonctionelle. Dunod. 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Groussard PY, Pigot H, Giroux S. From conception to evaluation of mobile services for people with head injury: a participatory design perspective. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2018;28(5):667–688.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell DJ, Sprung J, Mccauley D, et al. Knowledge exchange and discovery in the age of social media: the journey from inception to establishment of a Parent-Led Web-Based research advisory community for childhood disability. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(11):e293. 11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar