The extended impact of co-designed personalised aids for people living with chronic conditions: an exploratory study in a healthcare setting

References

• Edemekong PF, Bomgaars DL, Sukumaran S, et al. Activities of daily living: StatPearls [Internet]; 2022 [updated 2022 Feb 17; cited 2022 Mar 30]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470404/.
   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
• Fredrickson BL. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am Psychol. 2001;56(3):218–226. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mead J, Fisher Z, Kemp AH. Moving beyond disciplinary silos towards a transdisciplinary model of wellbeing: an invited review. Front Psychol. 2021;12:642093. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.642093.
   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. doi:10.3109/17483107.2015.1087061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Global report on assistive technology. Geneva: WHO; 2022.
   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. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.020.
   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. 2022;17(4):390–408. doi:10.1080/17483107.2020.1788181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Aflatoony L, Lee SJ. At makers: a multidisciplinary approach to co-designing assistive technologies by co-optimizing expert knowledge. Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise - Volume 2; Manizales, Colombia: Association for Computing Machinery; 2020. p. 128–132. doi:10.1145/3384772.3385158.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald S, Comrie N, Buehler E, et al. Uncovering challenges and opportunities for 3D printing assistive technology with physical therapists. Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility; Reno, Nevada, USA: Association For computing machinery; 2016. p. 131–139. doi:10.1145/2982142.2982162.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders EBN, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign. 2008;4(1):5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068.
   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. Int J Mobile Human Comp Interact. 2014;6(1):54–70. doi:10.4018/ijmhci.2014010104.
   Google Scholar
• Dougherty D. The maker movement. Innov Technol Governance Globalization. 2012;7(3):11–14.
   Google Scholar
• Howard J, Tasker LH, Fisher Z, et al. Assessing the use of co-design to produce bespoke assistive technology solutions within a current healthcare service: a service evaluation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022;19(1):42–51. doi:10.1080/17483107.2022.2060355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haley L, McKay EA. ‘Baking gives you confidence’: users’ views of engaging in the occupation of baking. Br J Occup Ther. 2004;67(3):125–128. doi:10.1177/030802260406700305.
   Google Scholar
• Collier AF. The well-being of women who create with textiles: implications for art therapy. Art Therapy. 2011;28(3):104–112. doi:10.1080/07421656.2011.597025.
   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. 06/01doi:10.1080/15710882.2011.609890.
   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. doi:10.1007/s40430-020-02347-w.
   Web of Science ®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. doi:10.1177/0309364617741776.
   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. Feb doi:10.1080/17483107.2018.1539877.
   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. Jul doi:10.1080/17483107.2018.1494217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ragoo K, Sirjoosingh V, Sahadeo S, et al. Design and development of a Pool and billiards assistive device for the physically challenged. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(6):628–634. Aug doi:10.1080/17483107.2018.1467974.
   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. Assistive Technol. 2019;33:(6):306–312. doi:10.1080/10400435.2019.1634660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aflatoony L, Lee SJ, Sanford J. Collective making: co-designing 3D printed assistive technologies with occupational therapists, designers, and end-users. Assistive Technol. 2021;35:(2):153–162. doi:10.1080/10400435.2021.1983070.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García TP, Garabal-Barbeira J, Trillo PP, et al. A framework for a new approach to empower users through low-cost and do-it-yourself assistive technology. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(6):3039. doi:10.3390/ijerph18063039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen K-AM, Stewart BC, Janes WE. Feasibility of customized 3D-printed assistive technology within an existing multidisciplinary amyotrophic lateral sclerosis clinic. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022;18(8):1466–1472. doi:10.1080/17483107.2022.2034996.
   PubMed 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. doi:10.3233/jid-2018-0002.
   Google Scholar
• Howard J, Bowtell M, Fisher Z, et al. Can a previously co-designed device be used by others? A service evaluation of the use of the Sativex spray holder for individuals with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2023;1–9. doi:10.1080/17483107.2023.2228344.
   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. doi:10.3233/TAD-2002-14304.
   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. doi:10.1080/09638280110066343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessels R, Persson J, Lorentsen Ø, et al. IPPA: individually prioritised problem assessment. TAD. 2002;14(3):141–145. doi:10.3233/TAD-2002-14310.
   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. doi:10.1080/10400435.2000.10132015.
   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. doi:10.1080/09638280110066352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Day H. Psychosocial Impact of Assistive devices Scale (PIADS). TAD. 2002;14(3):107–111. doi:10.3233/TAD-2002-14305.
   Google Scholar
• Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, et al. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5(1):63. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beecham J, Knapp M. Costing psychiatric interventions. In: Thornicroft G, editor. Measuring mental health needs. London: Gaskell; 2021. p. 200–224.
   Google Scholar