From patient to maker - a workflow including people with cerebral palsy in co-creating assistive devices using 3D printing technologies

References

• Edwards NI, Jones DA. Ownership and use of assistive devices amongst older people in the community. Age Ageing. 1998;27(4):463–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holt RC, Holt RJ. Gerotechnology: kitchen aids. Eur. Geriatr. Med., Vol. 2011;2(4):256–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kottow MH. Between caring and curing. Nurs. Philos. 2001;2(1):53–61.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching person & technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol. Disabil. 2002;14(3):125–131.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich R. Towards a global information network: the European assistive technology information network and the world alliance of at information providers. In: Everyday Technology for Independence and Care. IOS Press, 2011. p. 190–197.
   Google Scholar
• Giesbrecht E. Application of the human activity assistive technology model for occupational therapy research. Aust Occup Ther J. 2013;60(4):230–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz D, Emmel MLG, Manzini MG, et al. Assistive technology accessibility and abandonment: challenges for occupational therapists. Open J Occup Ther. 2016;4(1):10.
   Google Scholar
• Roda-Sales A, Vergara M, Sancho-Bru JL, et al. Effect of assistive devices on hand and arm posture during activities of daily living. Appl Ergon. 2019;76:64–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Roon D, Steenbergen B. The use of ergonomic spoons by people with cerebral palsy: effects on food spilling and movement kinematics. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;48(11):888–891. Nov.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammell KRW, Iwama MK. Well-being and occupational rights: an imperative for critical occupational therapy. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012;19(5):385–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bromley I. Tetraplegia and paraplegia: a guide for physiotherapists. New York: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Maia FB, Teixeira ER, Silva GV, et al. The use of assistive technology to promote care of the self and social inclusion in patients with sequels of leprosy. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(4):e0004644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunsford C, Grindle G, Salatin B, et al. Innovations with 3-Dimensional printing in physical medicine and rehabilitation: a review of the literature. Pm R. 2016;8(12):1201–1212.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Windasari N, Visita L, Of Economics F, et al. Universitas islam negeri – walisongo, Jl. Prof. Dr. Hamka, 3rd campus UIN walisongo, ngaliyan, semarang, Indonesia, “user engagement mechanisms of online Co-Design service: does user innovativeness matter? Asian Acad Manag J. 2019;24(1):59–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mugge R, Schoormans JPL, Schifferstein HNJ. Emotional bonding with personalised products. J Eng Des. 2009;20(5):467–476.
   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. 2021;33(6):306–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thingiverse.com. Thingiverse - Digital Designs for Physical Objects. Accessed 2022. https://www.thingiverse.com/
   Google Scholar
• Buehler E, et al. Sharing is caring: assistive technology designs on thingiverse. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2015. p. 525–534.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzales-Zamora JA, Alave J, De Lima-Corvino DF, et al. Videoconferences of infectious diseases: an educational tool that transcends borders. A useful tool also for the current COVID-19 pandemic. Infez. Med. 2020;28(2):135–138.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wessels R, et al. IPPA: individually prioritised problem assessment. Technol Disabil. 2002;14(3):141–145.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Technol Disabil. 2002;14(3):101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Salatino C, Pigini L, Andrich R. How to measure the impact of assistive technology solutions on the person’s quality of life? Proceedings of the 4th EAI International Conference on Smart Objects and Technologies for Social Good. Goodtechs 2018 – Bologna 28-30/11/2018 2018. p. 238–242.
   Google Scholar
• Grippos. Grippos. 2022. https://www.grippos.it/
   Google Scholar
• Aflatoony L, Lee SJ. Codea: a framework for Co-Designing assistive technologies with occupational therapists, industrial designers, and End-Users with mobility impairmentsin. Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, Cambridge University Press, 2020. p. 1843–1852.
   Google Scholar
• Hunzeker M, Ozelie R. A Cost-Effective analysis of 3D printing applications in occupational therapy practice. Open J Occup Ther. 2021;9(1):1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Crocker AF, Smith SN. Person-first language: are we practicing what we preach? J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019;12:125–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao J, Gao S, Wang J, et al. Differentiation between two healthcare concepts: person-centered and patient-centered care. J Nurs. 2016;2352:0132.
   Google Scholar
• Wikipedia. Computer-aided design. 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer-aided_design&oldid=1081445697
   Google Scholar
• Boral H, Gefen N. The PELE center: making tailored solutions for children with disabilities. In: Global perspectives on assistive technology., World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 22–23 August 2019. Volume 2. World Health Organization. 2019. p. 286–293.https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/330372.
   Google Scholar
• Zahid A, Krumins V, De Witte L, et al. The development of innovation sharing platforms for low cost and do-it-yourself assistive technology in low and Middle-income countries. In: Global perspectives on assistive technology.; 2019. p. 359–376.
   Google Scholar
• Michelucci P, Dickinson JL. The power of crowds. Science. 2016;351(6268):32–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks L, Ta K-HN, Townsend AF, et al. I just love it’: avid knitters describe health and well-being through occupation. Can J Occup Ther. 2019;86(2):114–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fossdal F, Heldal R, Peek N. Interactive digital fabrication machine control directly within a CAD environment. In: Symposium on Computational Fabrication, Virtual Event USA, 2021. p. 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Piergrossi JC. The function of ‘doing’ in the intermediate space: donald winnicott and occupational therapy. In: Psychoanalytic thinking in occupational therapy. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2013. p. 57–67.
   Google Scholar
• Sarmiento Pelayo MP. Co-design: a Central approach to the inclusion of people with disabilities. Rev Fac Med. 2015;63(3Sup):149–154.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman C, Jimison H, Pavel M. Participatory design for home care technology. Presented at the Proceedings of the Second Joint 24th Annual Conference and the Annual Fall Meeting of the Biomedical Engineering Society. Engineering in Medicine and Biology, Houston, TX, USA vol. 3. 2002. p. 1873–1874.
   Google Scholar