The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology

References

• Bernd T, Van Der Pijl D, De Witte LP. Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice. Scand J Occup Ther 2009;16:146–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wielandt T, Scherer MJ. [Internet] Reducing AT abandonment: proposed principles for AT selection and recommendation. [Created August 2004, updated December 2005]. http://www.e-bility.com/articles/at_selection.php. Last accessed cited 20 April 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Paquet VL. A review of conceptual models fore assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol 2003;15:1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggers SL, Myaskovsky L, Burkitt KH, Tolerico M, Switzer GE, Fine MJ, Boninger ML. A preliminary model of wheelchair service delivery. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: 1030–1038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessels RD, de Witte LP, van den Heuvel WJA. Measuring effectiveness of and satisfaction with assistive devices from a user perspective: an exploration of the literature. Technol Disabil 2004;16:83–90.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Sax CL. Measures of assistive technology predisposition and use. In: Mpofu E, Oakland T, editors. Rehabilitation and health assessment: applying ICF GuidelinesNew York: Spring Publishing Company; 2010. pp 229–254.
   Google Scholar
• Mirza M, Hammel J. Consumer-directed goal planning in the delivery of assistive technology services for people who are ageing with intellectual disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 2009;22:445–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louise-Bender Pape T, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:5–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson W. Role of persons with a disability in the design process. Top Stroke Rehabil 2008;15:87–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol 1993;5:36–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Riemer-Reiss ML, Wacker RR. Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. J Rehabil 2000;66:44–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs P, Hailey D, Jones A. Economic evaluation for assistive technology policy decisions. J Disabil Policy Stud 2003; 14:119–125.
   Google Scholar
• Verza R, Lopes Carvalho ML, Battaglia MA, Messmer Uccelli M. An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Mult Scler 2006;12:88–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copley J, Ziviana J. Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occup Ther Int 2004;11:229–243.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hocking C. Function or feelings: factors in abandonment of assistive devices. Technol Disabil 1993;11:3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Arthanat S, Bauer SM, Lenker JA, Nochajski SM, Wu YWB. Conceptualisation and measurement of assistive techno logy usability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007;2:235–248.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gibson BE, Upshur REG, Young NL, McKeever P. Disability, technology, and place: social and ethical implications of long-term dependency on medical devices. Ethics Plan Environ 2007;10:7–28.
   Google Scholar
• Gitlin LN. Why older people accept or reject assistive technology. Generations 1995;19:41–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching person & technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol Disabil 2002;14:125–131.
   Google Scholar
• Waldron D, Layton N. Hard and soft assistive technologies: defining roles for clinicians. Aust Occup Ther J 2008;55:61–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward AL, Sanjak M, Duffy K, Bravver E, Williams N, Nicols M, Brooks BR. Power wheelchair prescription, utilization, satisfaction, and cost for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: preliminary data for evidence-based guidelines. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:268–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 1996;8:3–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alper S, Raharinirina S. Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: a review and synthesis of the literature. J Spec Educ Technol 2006;21:47–64.
   Google Scholar
• O'Day BL, Corcoran PJ. Assistive technology: problems and policy alternatives. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:1165–1170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parette HP, Brotherson MJ. Family-centred and culturally responsive assistive technology decision making. Infants Young Child 2004;17:355–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessels R, Dijcks M, Soede GJ, Gelderblom GJ, De Witte L. Non-use of provided assistive technology devices: a literature review. Technol Disabil 2003;15:231–238.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Sax C, VanBiervliet A, Cushman LA, Scherer JV. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychological factors. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27: 1321–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoenig H, Landerman LR, Shipp KM, Pieper C, Richardson M, Pahel N, George L. A clinical trial of a rehabilitation expert clinician versus usual care for providing manual wheelchairs. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005;52:1712–1720.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Jutai J, Fuhrer M, Demers L, DeRuyter FA. A framework for modelling the selection of assistive techno logy devices (ATD). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007; 2:1–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Glueckauf R. Assessing the benefits of assistive technology for activities and participation. Rehabil Psychol 2005;50:132–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace JF, Hayes M, Nell Bailey M. Assistive technology loan financing: a status of program impact and consumer satisfaction. Technol Disabil 2000;13:17–22.
   Google Scholar
• Eagles Burke C. Summary of reliability study of matrices. Technol Disabil 1999;10:181–185.
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, DeRuyter F. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:1243–1251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthanat S, Nochajski SM, Lenker JA, Bauer SM, Wu YWB. Measuring usability of assistive technology from a multicontextual perspective: the case of power wheelchairs. Am J Occup Ther 2009;63:751–764.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbrugge LM, Rennert C, Madans JH. The great efficacy of personal and equipment assistance in reducing disability. Am J Public Health 1997;87:384–392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duff P, Dolphin C. Cost-benefit analysis of assistive technology to support independence for people with dementia – Part 2: results from employing the ENABLE cost-benefit model in practice. Technol Disabil 2007;19:79–90.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlin Ivanoff S, Sonn U. Assistive devices in activities of daily living used by persons with age-related macular degeneration: a population study of 85-year-olds living at home. Scand J Occup Ther 2005;12:10–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stumbo NJ, Martin JK, Hedrick BN. Assistive technology: impact on education, employment, and independence of individuals with physical disabilities. J Vocat Rehabil 2009; 30:99–110.
   Google Scholar
• Nochajski SM, Oddo C, Beaver K. Technology and transition: tools for success. Technol Disabil 1999;11:93–101.
   Google Scholar
• Gamble MJ, Dowler DL, Orslene LE. Assistive technology: choosing the right tool for the right job. J Vocat Rehabil 2006; 24:73–80.
   Google Scholar
• Gitlin L. From hospital to home: Individual variations in experience with assistive devices among older adults. In: Gray DB, Quatrano LA, Lieberman ML, editors. Designing and using assistive technology: the human perspective. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes; 1998. pp 299–309.
   Google Scholar
• Shone Stickel M, Ryan S, Rigby PJ, Jutai JW. Toward a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of electronic aids to daily living: evaluation of consumer satisfaction. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:115–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaye HS. Computer and Internet use among people with disabilities. San Francisco, CA: Disability Statistics Centre, Institute for Health and Aging, University of California; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Disability Rights Commission. The Web: access and inclusion for disabled people. London: Author; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Dobransky K, Eszter H. The disability divide in internet access and use. Inform Commun Soc 2006;9:313–334.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell S, Ciemnecki A, CyBulski K, Markesich J. Removing barriers to survey participation for persons with disabilities. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes SD, Bowie DA, Hergenrather KC. Collecting behavioural data using the world wide web: considerations for researchers. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:68–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubbard PA, Broome ME, Antia LA. Pain, coping, and disability in adolescents and young adults with cystic fibrosis: a web-based study. Paediatr Nurs 2005;31:82–86.
   Google Scholar
• Owens LK. Introduction to survey research design. 2005. Electronic citation, http://www.srl.uic.edu. Last accessed 10 March 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson R, Flint J. [Internet]. Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33; Guildford, England: Department of Sociology, Surrey University; 2001. Electronic citation. http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/. Last accessed cited 10 February 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Faugier J, Sargeant M. Sampling hard to reach populations. J Adv Nurs 1997;26:790–797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter SR, Whitcomb ME. The impact of contact type of web survey response rates. Public Opin Q 2003;67:579–588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellini JL, Rumrill PD Jr. Validity in rehabilitation research. J Vocat Rehabil 1999;13:131–138.
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ. Assistive technology outcomes research: challenges met and unmet. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2002;80:528–535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMillen A-M, Söderberg S. Disabled persons' experience of dependence on assistive devices. Scand J Occup Ther 2002; 9:176–183.
   Google Scholar
• Schweitzer JA, Mann WC, Nochajski S, Tomita M. Patterns of engagement in leisure activity by older adults using assistive devices. Technol Disabil 1999;11:103–117.
   Google Scholar
• Hammel J, Lai J-S, Heller T. The impact of assistive technology and environmental interventions on function and living situation status with people who are ageing with developmental disabilities. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:93–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson KL, Dudgeon B, Kuehn C, Walker W. Assistive technology use among adolescents and young adults with spina bifida. Am J Public Health 2007;97:330–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parette P Jr, VanBierbliet A. Rehabilitation assistive technology issues for infants and young children with disabilities: a preliminary examination. J Rehabil 1999;57:27–36.
   Google Scholar
• Pell SD, Gillies RM, Carss M. Relationship between use of technology and employment rates for people with physical disabilities in Australia: implications for education and training programmes. Disabil Rehabil 1997;19:332–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar