Assistive products for older adults in China: self-reported need, services, and satisfaction

References

• National Bureau of Statistics in China [Internet]. Bulletin of the Seventh National Census [cited 2023 Feb 8]. Available from: http://www.stats.gov.cn/xxgk/jd/sjjd2020/202105/t20210512_1817342.html.
   Google Scholar
• Kim S, Jung JY, Yang CM, et al. Development of an ergonomic writing assistive device for finger pain reduction in the elderly. Appl Sci. 2022;12(3):993. doi: 10.3390/app12030993.
   Google Scholar
• Pryor W, Nguyen L, Islam QN, et al. Unmet needs and use of assistive products in two districts of Bangladesh: findings from a household survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2901. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122901.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sriram V, Jenkinson C, Peters M. Informal carers’ experience of assistive technology use in dementia care at home: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):160. doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1169-0.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jiménez-Arberas E, Díez E. Psychosocial impact of assistive devices and other technologies on deaf and hard of hearing people. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(14):7259. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18147259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell D, Prain M, Layton N. Assistive technology for people with deaf blindness in Southern Africa: a Delphi study ­exploring dimensions of impact. Disabil Rehabil: assist Technol. 2023;18(1):30–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perotti L, Klebbe R, Maier A, et al. Evaluation of the quality and the provision process of wheelchairs in Germany. Results from an Online Survey. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol. 2023;18(2):205–214.
   Google Scholar
• Trafford Z, van der Westhuizen E, McDonald S, et al. More than just assistive devices: how a South African social ­enterprise supports an environment of inclusion. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(5):2655. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18052655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priority assistive products list [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016 [cited 2023 July 12]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/ item/priority-assistive-products-list.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Chen G. Use and needs of assistive devices in the background of aging: current situation and research progress. China J Rehabil Theory Pract. 2016;22(11):1350–1351.
   Google Scholar
• Lan ZY, Zeng J, Zhu L. The current situation and research progress of the demand and utilization of rehabilitation ­assistive devices for the elderly population. Geriatr Health Care. 2023;29(3):657–660.
   Google Scholar
• Ding D, Morris L, Messina K, et al. Providing mainstream smart home technology as assistive technology for persons with disabilities: a qualitative study with professionals. Disabil Rehabil: assist Technol. 2023;18(7):1192–1199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colucci M, Tofani M, Trioschi D, et al. Reliability and validity of the Italian version of Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology 2.0 (QUEST-IT 2.0) with users of mobility assistive device. Disabil Rehabil: assist Technol. 2021;16(3):251–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo HJ, Kosciulek J. Rehabilitation counsellor perceived ­importance and competence in assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil: assist Technol. 2023;18(7):1259–1265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Global report on assistive technology [Internet]. Geneva: world Health Organization; cited 2023 Feb 8]. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-policy-and-standards/assistive-and-medical-technology/assistive-technology/global-report-on-assistive-technology.
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Arberas E, Ordonez-Fernandez F. Discontinuation or abandonment of mobility assistive technology among people with neurological conditions. Rev Neurol. 2021;72(12):426–432. doi: 10.33588/rn.7212.2020655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hao XN, Deng YH. Analysis of the mechanisms influencing the willingness to pay for assistive devices for the elderly with disabilities – based on Logit-ISM model. Health Econ Res. 2022;39(12):17–21.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5(1):36–45. doi: 10.1080/10400435.1993.10132205.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sugawara AT, Ramos VD, Alfieri FM, et al. Abandonment of assistive products: assessing abandonment levels and factors that impact on it. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(7):716–723. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2018.1425748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SH. Users’ satisfaction with assistive devices in South Korea. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26(4):509–512. doi: 10.1589/jpts.26.509.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2017.1367737.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarour M, Jacob T, Kram N. Wheelchair satisfaction among elderly Arab and Jewish patients – a cross-sectional survey. Disabil Rehabil: assist Technol. 2023;18(4):363–368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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;17(4):390–408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aledda S, Galeoto G, Fabbrini G, et al. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2023;1–8. (Jan):doi: 10.1080/17483107.2022.2161648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarte. 1989;13(3):319–341. doi: 10.2307/249008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding D, Morris L, Messina K, et al. Providing mainstream smart home technology as assistive technology for persons with disabilities: a qualitative study with professionals. Disabil Rehabil: assist Technol. 2023;18(7):1192–1199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang W, Eide AH, Pryor W, et al. Measuring self-reported access to assistive technology using the WHO rapid assistive technology assessment (rATA) questionnaire: orotocol for a multi-country study. IJERPH. 2021;18(24):13336. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182413336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Wessels R, Weiss-Lambrou R, et al. Key dimensions of client satisfaction with assistive technology: a cross-validation of a Canadian measure in The Netherlands. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33(4):187–191. doi: 10.1080/165019701750300663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gudjonsdottir B, Gudmundsdottir SB. Mobility devices for children with physical disabilities: use, satisfaction and impact on participation. Disabil Rehabil: assist Technol. 2023;18(6):722–729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gélinas-Bronsard D, Mortenson WB, Ahmed S, et al. Co-construction of an internet-based intervention for older assistive technology users and their family caregivers: stakeholders’ perceptions. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(6):602–611. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2018.1499138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seymour N, Geiger M, Scheffler E. Community-based rehabilitation workers’ perspectives of wheelchair provision in Uganda: a qualitative study. Afr J Disabil. 2019;8:432. doi: 10.4102/ajod.v8i0.432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ott J, Champagne SN, Bachani AM, et al. Scoping “sex” and “gender” in rehabilitation: (mis)representations and effects. Int J Equity Health. 2022;21(1):179. doi: 10.1186/s12939-022-01787-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan BN, Sheng ZH. The measurement and incentive mechanism of administrative dynamics of chinese grassroots cadres in the new era: mediation effect of career aspiration and moderation effect of promotion prospect. J Manag World. 2022;38(01):118–138.
   Google Scholar
• The average life expectancy of our population is 74.83 years. National Bureau of Statistics in China; [cited 2023 Feb 8]. Available from: http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/201209/t20120921_30330.html.
   Google Scholar
• Faieta J, Schmeler MR, Schiappa VJ, et al. Evaluation of service delivery effectiveness through patient-reported outcome measures. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;98(12):1072–1078. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu CP, Zhu WQ, Gu L. Personal income, family assets and rural residents’ well-being: an empirical study based on CGSS 2013. World Surv Res. 2017;4:41–49.
   Google Scholar
• Magnusson L, Ahlström G. Patients’ satisfaction with lower-limb prosthetic and orthotic devices and service ­delivery in Sierra Leone and Malawi. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):102. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2044-3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nuri RP, Xu X, Aldersey HM. Users’ satisfaction and experiences in using assistive devices distributed by a rehabilitation Centre in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022;1–10. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2022.2129849.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar