COOK technology to support meal preparation following a severe traumatic brain injury: a usability mixed-methods single-case study in a real-world environment

References

• Daniels S, Glorieux I, Minnen J, et al. More than preparing a meal? Concerning the meanings of home cooking. Appetite. 2012;58(3):1050–1056. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.02.040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boucher N, Lanctôt C. Pour un milieu de vie stimulant et une participation sociale accrue des personnes ayant un traumatisme cranio-cérébral au québec. Montréal: Le Regroupement Des Associations De Personnes Traumatisées Cranio-Cérébrales du Québec; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Colantonio A, Ratcliff G, Chase S, et al. Long term outcomes after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(5):253–261. doi:10.1080/09638280310001639722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubuc É, Gagnon‐Roy M, Couture M, et al. Perceived needs and difficulties in meal preparation of people living with traumatic brain injury in a chronic phase: supporting long‐term services and interventions. Aust Occup Ther J. 2019;66(6):720–730. doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarshenas S, Gagnon-Roy M, Couture M, et al. Potential of using an assistive technology to address meal preparation difficulties following acquired brain injury: clients’ and caregivers’ perspectives. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2023;18(4):458–466. doi:10.1080/17483107.2020.1867244.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson L, Stewart W, Dams-O'Connor K, et al. The chronic and evolving neurological consequences of traumatic brain injury. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(10):813–825. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30279-X.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tate RL, Lane-Brown AT, Myles BM, et al. A longitudinal study of support needs after severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2020;34(8):991–1000. doi:10.1080/02699052.2020.1764101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godefroy O, Azouvi P, Robert P, et al. Dysexecutive syndrome: diagnostic criteria and validation study. Ann Neurol. 2010;68(6):855–864. doi:10.1002/ana.22117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortin S, Godbout L, Braun CMJ. Cognitive structure of executive deficits in frontally lesioned head trauma patients performing activities of daily living. Cortex. 2003;39(2):273–291. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70109-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godbout L, Grenier MC, Braun CMJ, et al. Cognitive structure of executive deficits in patients with frontal lesions performing activities of daily living. Brain Inj. 2005;19(5):337–348. doi:10.1080/02699050400005093.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lezak MD. The problem of assessing executive functions. Int J Psychol. 1982;17(1–4):281–297. doi:10.1080/00207598208247445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bottari C, Dassa C, Rainville C, et al. The IADL profile: development, content validity, intra- and interrater agreement. Can J Occup Ther. 2010;77(2):90–100. doi:10.2182/cjot.2010.77.2.5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bottari C, Dassa C, Rainville C, et al. The factorial validity and internal consistency of the instrumental activities of daily living profile in individuals with a traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2009;19(2):177–207. doi:10.1080/09602010802188435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bottari C, Dassa C, Rainville C, et al. The criterion-related validity of the IADL profile with measures of executive functions, indices of trauma severity and sociodemographic characteristics. Brain Inj. 2009;23(4):322–335. doi:10.1080/02699050902788436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillespie A, Best C, O'Neill B. Cognitive function and assistive technology for cognition: a systematic review. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2012;18(1):1–19. doi:10.1017/S1355617711001548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagnon-Roy M, Bourget A, Stocco S, et al. Assistive technology addressing safety issues in dementia: a scoping review. Am J Occup Ther. 2017;71(5):7105190020p1–7105190020p10. doi:10.5014/ajot.2017.025817.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holthe T, Halvorsrud L, Karterud D, et al. Usability and acceptability of technology for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic literature review. Clin Interv Aging. 2018;13:863–886. 05/04 PubMed PMID: PMC5942395. doi:10.2147/CIA.S154717.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kettlewell J, das Nair R, Radford K. A systematic review of personal smart technologies used to improve outcomes in adults with acquired brain injuries. Clin Rehabil. 2019;33(11):1705–1712. doi:10.1177/0269215519865774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu Y, Brown P, Harniss M, et al. Cognitive support technologies for people with TBI: current usage and challenges experienced. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9(4):279–285. doi:10.3109/17483107.2013.823631.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leopold A, Lourie A, Petras H, et al. The use of assistive technology for cognition to support the performance of daily activities for individuals with cognitive disabilities due to traumatic brain injury: the current state of the research. NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;37(3):359–378. doi:10.3233/nre-151267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson M, Cullen B, McGee-Lennon M, et al. The efficacy of cognitive prosthetic technology for people with memory impairments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2014;24(3-4):419–444. doi:10.1080/09602011.2013.825632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nam J-H, Kim H. How assistive devices affect activities of daily living and cognitive functions of people with brain injury: a meta-analysis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(3):305–311. doi:10.1080/17483107.2017.1358304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SY, Amatya B, Judson R, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitation in traumatic brain injury: a critical appraisal. Brain Inj. 2019;33(10):1263–1271. doi:10.1080/02699052.2019.1641747.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaezipour A, Whelan B-M, Wall K, et al. Acceptance of rehabilitation technology in adults with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury, their caregivers, and healthcare professionals: a systematic review. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2019;34(4):E67–E82. doi:10.1097/HTR.0000000000000462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudzicz F, Wang R, Begum M, et al. Speech interaction with personal assistive robots supporting aging at home for individuals with alzheimer’s disease. ACM Trans Access Comput. 2015;7(2):1–22. doi:10.1145/2744206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahajan HP, Ding D. Cueing kitchen: a smart cooking assistant. In: 2014 40th Annual Northeast Bioengineering Conference (NEBEC), Boston (MA): IEEE; 2014. p. 1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Wang J, Mahajan HP, Toto PE, et al. The feasibility of an automatic prompting system in assisting people with traumatic brain injury in cooking tasks. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(8):817–825. PubMed PMID: 30318931; eng. doi:10.1080/17483107.2018.1499144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cicerone KD, Dams-O'Connor K, Eberle R, et al. Cognitive rehabilitation manual & textbook second edition: translating evidence-based recommendations into practice. Publisher unknown: ACRM Publishing; 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Seelye AM, Schmitter-Edgecombe M, Das B, et al. Application of cognitive rehabilitation theory to the development of smart prompting technologies. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2012;5:29–44. doi:10.1109/RBME.2012.2196691.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Giroux S, Bier N, Pigot H, et al. Cognitive assistance to meal preparation: design, implementation, and assessment in a living lab. In: AAAI2015-AIHCE AAAI 2015 Spring Symposium - Ambient Intelligence for Health and Cognitive Enhancement; Stanford (CA); 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Olivares M, Giroux S, De Loor P, et al. An ontology model for a context-aware preventive assistance system: reducing exposition of individuals with traumatic brain injury to dangerous situations during meal preparation. In: 2nd IET International Conference on Technologies for Active and Assisted Living (TechAAL 2016); London; 2016. doi:10.1049/ic.2016.0052.
   Google Scholar
• Pinard S, Bottari C, Laliberté C, et al. Development of an assistive technology for cognition to support meal preparation in severe traumatic brain injury: user-centered design study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2022;9(3):e34821. doi:10.2196/34821.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pinard S, Bottari C, Laliberté C, et al. Design and usability evaluation of COOK, an assistive technology for meal preparation for persons with severe TBI. Disability Rehabil Assistive Technol. 2021;16(7):687–701. doi:10.1080/17483107.2019.1696898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarshenas S, Couture M, Bier N, et al. Potential advantages, barriers, and facilitators of implementing a cognitive orthosis for cooking for individuals with traumatic brain injury: the healthcare providers’ perspective. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022;17(8):938–947. doi:10.1080/17483107.2020.1833093.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaddaden A, Gagnon-Roy M, Couture M, et al. Using a cognitive orthosis to support older adults during meal preparation: clinicians’ perspective on COOK technology. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2020;7:2055668320909074. doi:10.1177/2055668320909074.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagnon-Roy M, Bier N, Couture M, et al. Facilitators and obstacles to the use of a cognitive orthosis for meal preparation within the homes of adults with a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: Informal caregivers and health-care professionals’ perspectives. Assist Technol. 2022;34(3):281–288. doi:10.1080/10400435.2020.1809552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang RH, Kenyon LK, McGilton KS, et al. The time is now: a FASTER approach to generate research evidence for technology-based interventions in the field of disability and rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021;102(9):1848–1859. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2021.04.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz R, Wahl H-W, Matthews JT, et al. Advancing the aging and technology agenda in gerontology. Gerontologist. 2015;55(5):724–734. doi:10.1093/geront/gnu071.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marikyan D, Papagiannidis S, Alamanos E. A systematic review of the smart home literature: a user perspective. Technol Forecasting Social Change. 2019;138:139–154. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. Ergonomics of human–system interaction—part 11: usability: definitions and concepts. Geneva (Switzerland); 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Lau F, Kuziemsky C. Handbook of eHealth evaluation: an evidence-based approach. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Von Steinbüchel N, Wilson L, Gibbons H, et al. Quality of life after brain injury (QOLIBRI): scale development and metric properties. J Neurotrauma. 2010;27(7):1167–1185. doi:10.1089/neu.2009.1076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbière M, Larivière N. Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes, 2e édition: dans la recherche en sciences humaines, sociales et de la santé. Quebec: Presses De L'Université du Québec; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Onghena P, Maes B, Heyvaert M. Mixed methods single case research: state of the art and future directions. J Mixed Methods Res. 2019;13(4):461–480. doi:10.1177/1558689818789530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bottari C, Dassa C, Rainville C, et al. A generalizability study of the instrumental activities of daily living profile. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(5):734–742. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.12.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kertesz A. Western aphasia battery test manual. New York, NY: Psychological Corp; 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas JM, Bracy CA, Snow PC. Measuring perceived communicative ability after traumatic brain injury: reliability and validity of the La trobe communication questionnaire. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2007;22(1):31–38. doi:10.1097/00001199-200701000-00004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bean J. Rey auditory verbal learning test, rey AVLT. In: Kreutzer JS, DeLuca J, Caplan B, editors. Encyclopedia of clinical neuropsychology. New York (NY): Springer; 2011. p. 2174–2175. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_1153.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler D. MEM-IV: échelle clinique de mémoire de wechsler. Paris: Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler D. Wechsler adult intelligence scale–fourth edition (WAIS–IV). San Antonio (TX): NCS Pearson; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Tombaugh TN. Trail making test a and B: normative data stratified by age and education. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004;19(2):203–214. doi:10.1016/S0887-6177(03)00039-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesulam M-M. Principles of behavioral neurology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1985. p. 26.
   Google Scholar
• Delis DC, Kaplan E, Kramer JH. Delis-Kaplan executive function system. San Antonio (TX): Psychological Corporation; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Culbertson WC, Zillmer EA. Tower of London-Drevel university. – 2nd Edition (TOLDX). Toronto, Canada: multi-Health Systems; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Simmond M, Fleming J. Reliability of the self-awareness of deficits interview for adults with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2003;17(4):325–337. doi:10.1080/0269905021000013219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seng BK, Luo N, Ng WY, et al. Validity and reliability of the zarit burden interview in assessing caregiving burden. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2010;39(10):758–763. doi:10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.V39N10p758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarit SH, Reever KE, Bach-Peterson J. Relatives of the impaired elderly: correlates of feelings of burden. Gerontologist. 1980;20(6):649–655. doi:10.1093/geront/20.6.649.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly G, Todd J, Simpson G, et al. The overt behaviour scale (OBS): a tool for measuring challenging behaviours following ABI in community settings. Brain Inj. 2006;20(3):307–319. doi:10.1080/02699050500488074.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brangier E, Barcenilla J. Concevoir un produit facile à utiliser. Paris: Editions d’organisation. 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Rabinowitz AR, Levin HS. Cognitive sequelae of traumatic brain injury. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2014;37(1):1–11. PubMed PMID: PMC3927143. doi:10.1016/j.psc.2013.11.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuen HK, D'Amico M. Deriving directions through procedural task analysis. Occup Ther Health Care. 1998;11(2):17–25. doi:10.1080/J003v11n02_02.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kirwan B, Ainsworth LK. A guide to task analysis: the task analysis working group. London: CRC Press; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Krasny-Pacini A, Evans J. Single-case experimental designs to assess intervention effectiveness in rehabilitation: a practical guide. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;61(3):164–179. doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2017.12.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Learmonth Y, Dlugonski D, Pilutti L, et al. Psychometric properties of the fatigue severity scale and the modified fatigue impact scale. J Neurol Sci. 2013;331(1-2):102–107. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2013.05.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziino C, Ponsford J. Measurement and prediction of subjective fatigue following traumatic brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2005;11(4):416–425. doi:10.1017/S1355617705050472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green A, Felmingham K, Baguley IJ, et al. The clinical utility of the beck depression inventory after traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2001;15(12):1021–1028. doi:10.1080/02699050110074187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fydrich T, Dowdall D, Chambless DL. Reliability and validity of the beck anxiety inventory. J Anxiety Disord. 1992;6(1):55–61. doi:10.1016/0887-6185(92)90026-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willer B, Ottenbacher KJ, Coad ML. The community integration questionnaire: a comparative examination. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;73(2):103–111. doi:10.1097/00002060-199404000-00006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willer B, Rosenthal M, Kreutzer JS, et al. Assessment of community integration following rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1993;8(2):75–87. doi:10.1097/00001199-199308020-00009.
   Google Scholar
• von Steinbuechel N, Petersen C, Bullinger M, et al. Assessment of health-related quality of life in persons after traumatic brain injury—development of the Qolibri, a specific measure. Re-Engineering of the Damaged Brain and Spinal Cord: Springer; 2005. p. 43–49.
   Google Scholar
• Sohlberg MM, Mateer CA. Training use of compensatory memory books: a three stage behavioral approach. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1989;11(6):871–891. 1989/12/01doi:10.1080/01688638908400941.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imbeault H, Bier N, Pigot H, et al. Electronic organiser and alzheimer’s disease: fact or fiction? Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2014;24(1):71–100. doi:10.1080/09602011.2013.858641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imbeault H, Gagnon L, Pigot H, et al. Impact of AP@ LZ in the daily life of three persons with alzheimer’s disease: long-term use and further exploration of its effectiveness. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2018;28(5):755–778. doi:10.1080/09602011.2016.1172491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Routhier S, Macoir J, Imbeault H, et al. From smartphone to external semantic memory device: the use of new technologies to compensate for semantic deficits. Non-Pharmacol Ther Dementia. 2011;2(2):81.
   Google Scholar
• Zarshenas S, Couture M, Bier N, et al. Implementation of an assistive technology for meal preparation within a supported residence for adults with acquired brain injury: a mixed-methods single case study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021:1–17. doi:10.1080/17483107.2021.2005163.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skidmore ER. Training to optimize learning after traumatic brain injury. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep. 2015;3(2):99–105. doi:10.1007/s40141-015-0081-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ownsworth T, Fleming J, Tate R, et al. Do people with severe traumatic brain injury benefit from making errors? A randomized controlled trial of error-based and errorless learning. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(12):1072–1082. doi:10.1177/1545968317740635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative data analysis: a method sourcebook. Washington, DC: Sage Publications; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Polgar JM. Framework for assistive technologies. In: Elsevier Health Sciences, editor. Assistive technologies-e-book: principles and practice. St-Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. p. 34–53.
   Google Scholar
• Ledford JR, Lane JD, Severini KE. Systematic use of visual analysis for assessing outcomes in single case design studies. Brain Impairment. 2018;19(1):4–17. doi:10.1017/BrImp.2017.16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker RI, Vannest KJ, Davis JL, et al. Combining nonoverlap and trend for Single-Case research: tau-U. Behav Ther. 2011;42(2):284–299. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vannest KJ, Parker RI, Gonen O, et al. Single case research: web based calculators for SCR analysis (version 2.0). College Station, TX: Texas A&M University; 2016. Available from: singlecaseresearch.org
   Google Scholar
• Wang J, Mahajan H, Toto P, et al. Comparison of two prompting methods in guiding people with traumatic brain injury in cooking tasks. In: International Conference on Smart Homes and Health Telematics; 2014. p. 83–92. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14424-5_9.
   Google Scholar
• OʼNeill B, Best C, OʼNeill L, et al. Efficacy of a micro-prompting technology in reducing support needed by people with severe acquired brain injury in activities of daily living: a randomized control trial. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2018;33(5):E33–E41. doi:10.1097/HTR.0000000000000358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barcenilla J, Bastien JMC. L'acceptabilité des nouvelles technologies: quelles relations avec l‘ergonomie, l‘utilisabilité et l‘expérience utilisateur? Le Travail Humain. 2010; 72(4):311–331. doi:10.3917/th.724.0311.
   Google Scholar
• Covington NV, Duff MC. Heterogeneity is a hallmark of traumatic brain injury, not a limitation: a new perspective on study design in rehabilitation research. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021;30(2S):974–985. doi:10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farmer N, Touchton-Leonard K, Ross A. Psychosocial benefits of cooking interventions: a systematic review. Health Educ Behav. 2018;45(2):167–180. doi:10.1177/1090198117736352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tate RL, Perdices M, Rosenkoetter U, et al. The Single-Case reporting guideline in BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 statement. Can J Occup Ther. 2016;83(3):184–195. Jun PubMed PMID: 27231387; eng. doi:10.1177/0008417416648124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bier N, Macoir J, Joubert S, et al. Cooking “shrimp à la créole”: a pilot study of an ecological rehabilitation in semantic dementia. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2011;21(4):455–483. doi:10.1080/09602011.2011.580614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar