Interventions aimed at improving the ability to use everyday technology in work after brain injury

References

• Nygård L, Starkhammar S. The use of everyday technology by people with dementia living alone: mapping out the difficulties. Aging Ment Health. 2007;11:144–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jonge D, Scherer MJ, Rodger S. Assistive technology in the workplace. United States of America: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Emiliani PL. Assistive technology (AT) versus mainstream technology (MST): the research perspective. Technol Disabil. 2006;18:19–29.
   Google Scholar
• Bühler C, Engelen J, Emiliani P, et al. Technology and inclusion - past, present and foreseeable future. Technol Disabil. 2011;23:101–114.
   Google Scholar
• Cicerone KD, Langenbahn DM, Braden C, et al. Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: updated review of the literature from 2003 through 2008. Arch Phys Med Rehabilit. 2011;92:519–530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner-Stokes L, Nair A, Sedki I, Disler PB, Wade DT. Multi-disciplinary rehabilitation for acquired brain injury in adults of working age. Cochrane Datab Syst Rev. 2005;3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vestling M, Tufvesson B, Iwarsson S. Indicators for return to work after stroke and the importance of work for subjective well-being and life satisfaction. J Rehabilit Med. 2003;35:127–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shames J, Treger I, Ring H, Giaquinto S. Return to work following traumatic brain injury: trends and challenges. Disabil Rehabilit. 2007;29:1387–1395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treger I, Shames J, Giaquinto S, Ring H. Return to work in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabilit. 2007;29:1397–1403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cancelliere C, Kristman VL, Cassidy JD, et al. Systematic review of return to work after mild traumatic brain injury: results of the international collaboration on mild traumatic brain injury prognosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabilit. 2014;95:201–209.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Velzen JM, van Bennekom CAM, Edelaar MJA, et al. Prognostic factors of return to work after acquired brain injury: a systematic review. Brain Injury. 2009;23: 385–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andelic N, Stevens LF, Sigurdardottir S, et al. Associations between disability and employment 1 year after traumatic brain injury in a working age population. Brain Injury. 2012;26:261–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Velzen J, van Bennekom C, van Dormolen M, et al. Factors influencing return to work experienced by people with acquired brain injury: a qualitative research study. Disabil Rehabilit. 2011;33:2237–2246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubenson C, Svensson E, Linddahl I, Björklund A. Experiences of returning to work after acquired brain injury. Scand J Occupat Ther. 2007;14:205–214.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bühler C, Engelen J, Soede M. Fundamental changes in society. Technol Disabil. 2011;23:95–99.
   Google Scholar
• Engström AL, Lexell J, Lund ML. Difficulties in using everyday technology after acquired brain injury: a qualitative analysis. Scand J Occupat Ther. 2010;17:233–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassberg A, Prellwitz M, Larsson Lund M. The challenges of everyday technology in the workplace for persons with acquired brain injury. Scand J Occupat Ther. 2013;20:231–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fallahpour M, Kottorp A, Nygård L, Lund ML. Perceived difficulty in use of everyday technology in persons with acquired brain injury of different severity: a comparison with controls. J Rehabilit Med. 2014;46:635–641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson LM, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Perceived difficulty in the use of everyday technology: relationships with everyday functioning in people with acquired brain injury with a special focus on returning to work. Disabil Rehabilit. 2013;1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson Lund M, Lövgren Engström A, Lexell J. Response actions to difficulties in using everyday technology after acquired brain injury. Scand J Occupat Ther. 2012;19:164–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Harris F, Taugher M, Smith RO. Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8:373–380.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Joode E, van Heugten C, Verhey F, van Boxtel M. Efficacy and usability of assistive technology for patients with cognitive deficits: a systematic review. Clin Rehabilit. 2010;24:701–714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher AG. Occupational therapy intervention process model. A model for planning and implementing top-down, client centered and occupation-based interventions. Fort Collin, Colorado: three Star Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. California: Sage; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson JTL, Pettigrew LEL, Teasdale GM. Structured interviews for the Glasgow outcome scale and the extended glasgow outcome scale: guidelines for their use. J Neurotrauma. 1998;15:573–580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponsford J, McLaren A, Schönberger M, et al. The association between apolipoprotein and traumatic brain injury severity and functional outcome in a rehabilitation sample. J Neurotrauma. 2011;28:1683–1692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassberg A, Malinowsky C, Jacobsson L, Lund ML. Ability to manage everyday technology after acquired brain injury. Brain Injury. 2013;27:1583–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:695–699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krupp LB, LaRocca NG, Muir-Nash J, Steinberg AD. The fatigue severity scale. Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Neurol. 1989;46:1121–1123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattsson M, Möller B, Lundberg I, et al. Reliability and validity of the fatigue severity scale in swedish for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Scand J Rheumatol. 2008;37:269–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, et al. Canadian occupational performance measure (COPM). Nacka: Globalt Företagstryck AB; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Wressle E, Marcusson J, Henriksson C. Clinical utility of the Canadian occupational performance measure-Swedish version. Canadian. Can J Occup Ther. 2002;69:40–48.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phipps S, Richardson P. Occupational therapy outcomes for clients with traumatic brain injury and stroke using the Canadian occupational performance measure. Am J Occup Ther. 2007;61:328–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygård L. Användarmanual för: management for everyday technology assessment (META). Stockholm: Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska institutet; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of the ability to manage technology in everyday life. Scand J Occupat Ther. 2011;18:26–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Kassberg A, Larsson-Lund M, Kottorp A. Stability of person ability measures in people with acquired brain injury in the use of everyday technology: the test-retest reliability of the management of everyday technology assessment (META). Disabil Rehabilit Assist Technol. 2014;1–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. California: Sage; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Lindén A, Lexell J, Larsson Lund M. Improvements of task performance in daily life after acquired brain injury using commonly available everyday technology. Disabil Rehabilit Assist Technol. 2011;6:214–224.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Psychology Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JMA. User's guide to FACETS rasch-model computer programs program manual 3.70. 0 by. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321:694–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kielhofner G. Model of human occupation. theory and application. 4th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Koch L, Egbert N, Coeling H, Ayers D. Returning to work after the onset of illness experiences of right hemisphere stroke survivors. Rehabilit Counsel Bull. 2005;48:209–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statens offentliga utredningar (SOU). Rehabiliteringsrådets slutbetänkande. 2011:15;Stockholm: Fritze.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg L, Nygård L. Persons with dementia become users of assistive technology: a study of the process. Dementia. 2012;11:135–154.
   Google Scholar