Documentation of and satisfaction with the service delivery process of electric powered scooters among adult users in different national contexts

References

• United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, United Nations, New York, U.S.A., Editor. 2008. Available from: http:/www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259. Accessed on 25 August 2010.
   Google Scholar
• NUH-Nordic centre for Rehabilitation Technology. Provision of Assistive Technology in the Nordic Countries. Stenberg L, editor. NUH-Nordic centre for Rehabilitation Technology, 2nd ed. Helsinki, Finland: The Nordic Development Centre for Rehabilitation Technology; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• International standard ISO 9999. Assistive products for persons with disability - Classification and terminology, 5th. edition. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO The International Organization for Standardization; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong W, Borg J, Krizack M, Lindsley A, Mines K, Pearlman J, Reisinger K et al. . World Health Organization WHO. Guidelines on the provision of Manual Wheelchairs in less resourced settings. Borg J, Khasnabis C, editor. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt A, Iwarsson S, Ståhle A. Older people’s use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation. J Rehabil Med 2004;36:70–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward AL, Sanjak M, Duffy K, Bravver E, Williams N, Nichols 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
• Kahane T, Ross-Larsson B (editors). World Health Organization WHO. The World Bank, The World Report on Disability. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service NAV. Statistics of assistive technology in Norway (Unpublished).
   Google Scholar
• Brandt Å, Stapelfeldt C. Forbrug af mobilitetshjælpemidler 2002-2006 - på basis af data fra Zealand Care. Hjælpemiddelinstituttet, Århus, Denmark 2009. [The distribution of assistive devices for mobility 2002-2006 - based on data from Zealand Care. The Danish Centre for Assistive Technology, Århus, Denmark 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Jutai JW, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, Scherer MJ, DeRuyter F. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:294–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt A, Kreiner S, Iwarsson S. Mobility-related participation and user satisfaction: construct validity in the context of powered wheelchair use. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2010;5:305–313.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lenker JA, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Demers L, Scherer MJ, DeRuyter F. Treatment theory, intervention specification, and treatment fidelity in assistive technology outcomes research. Assist Technol 2010;22:129–38; quiz 139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. 1996. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007;455:3–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessels RD, De Witte LP. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:267–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karmarkar AM, Collins DM, Kelleher A, Cooper RA. Satisfaction related to wheelchair use in older adults in both nursing homes and community dwelling. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2009;4:337–343.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology QUEST version 2.0. An outcome measure for assistive technology devices. New York: The Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988;260:1743–1748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoenig H, Lee J, Stineman M. Conceptual overview of frameworks for measuring quality in rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil 2010;17:239–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donabedian A. An Introduction to Quality Assurance in Health Care. Bashshur R, editor. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Deloitte&Touche. Access to Assistive Technology in the European Union. Unit E.4, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Hussey SM. Assistive Technologies: Principles and practice. 2nd ed. St-Louis, Missouri Elsevier Inc.: 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelsson K, Wressle E. User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: an important element in the rehabilitation process. Disabil Rehabil 2008;30:551–558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward D. Prescribing seating for wheeled mobility. Theory, application, and terminology. Kansas City, KS: Health Wealth International; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Heart-Line C. European Service Delivery System in Rehabilitation Technology, a comprehensive description of service delivery systems in 16 European countries. Hensbroek: Institute for Rehabilitation Research iRv; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt Å. Outcomes of rollator and powered wheelchair interventions. User satisfaction and participation (Dissertation). Faculty of Medicine, Division of Occupational Therapy, Lunds University, Lund, Sweden; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Garber SL, Bunzel R, Monga TN. Wheelchair utilization and satisfaction following cerebral vascular accident. J Rehabil Res Dev 2002;39:521–534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brochard S, Pedelucq JP, Cormerais A, Thiebaut M, Rémy-Néris O. [Satisfaction with technological equipment in individuals with tetraplegia following spinal cord injury]. Ann Readapt Med Phys 2007;50:78–84.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fitzgerald SG, Collins DM, Cooper RA, Tolerico M, Kelleher A, Hunt P, Martin S, et al. Issues in maintenance and repairs of wheelchairs: A pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005;42:853–862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacoste M, Weiss-Lambrou R, Allard M, Dansereau J. Powered tilt/recline systems: why and how are they used? Assist Technol 2003;15:58–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans S, Frank AO, Neophytou C, de Souza L. Older adults’ use of, and satisfaction with, electric powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs. Age Ageing 2007;36:431–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wressle E, Samuelsson K. User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scand J Occup Ther 2004;11:143–150.
   Google Scholar
• Jedeloo S, De Witte L, Schrijvers G. A user-centred approach to assess the effectiveness of outdoor mobility devices and services. Int J Rehabil Res 2002;25:137–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jedeloo S, De Witte LP, Linssen BA, Schrijvers AJ. Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:550–557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mindegaard P, Andersen M. Elscootere som forbrugsgoder. Ergoterapeuten. Elscooters as consumer goods. Danish J Occup Ther 2011; 3:16–17.
   Google Scholar
• Evans S, Neophytou C, de Souza L, Frank AO. Young people’s experiences using electric powered indoor - outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOCs): potential for enhancing users’ development? Disabil Rehabil 2007;29:1281–1294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Wessels RD, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B, De Witte LP. An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Occup Ther Int 1999;6(3):159–175.
   Google Scholar
• Hellbom G, Persson J. Estimating user benefits of assistive technology and services - on the importance of independent assessors. In Maincek et al., editors. Assistive Technology - Added Value on the Quality of Life. Oh, USA: Assistive technology 2001; pp 551–554.
   Google Scholar
• The Norwegian Data Inspectorate, Meldingsnummer 40030 [Registration number 40030] 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt Å, Löfqvist C, Jonsdottir I, Salminen AL, Sund T, Iwarsson S. NOMO 1.0. Norsk Manual NOMO 1.0 [Norwegian Manual of NOMO 1.0] Oslo 2009. Available at www.nav.no.
   Google Scholar
• Dijcks BP, Wessels RD, de Vlieger SL, Post MW. KWAZO, a new instrument to assess the quality of service delivery in assistive technology provision. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28:909–914.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen MF, Olesen PK, Iversen HK, Jensen HN, Jacobsen LT. SATS - Satisfaction with Assistive Technology Service. En undersøkelse af test-retest reliability af den danske version af SATS [A test-retest reliability test of the Danish version of SATS. Bachelor-thesis]. Denmark: University College Nordjylland 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer M, Jutai J, Fuhrer M, Demers L, Deruyter F. A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007;2:1–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Altman D. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Dittmar SS. Overview: A functional approach to measurement of rehabilitation outcomes, in Functional Assessment and Outcome Measures for the Rehabilitation Health Professional. Dittmar SS, Gresham GE, editors. Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen Publishers; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Hush JM, Cameron K, Mackey M. Patient satisfaction with musculoskeletal physical therapy care: a systematic review. Phys Ther 2011;91:25–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lian O, Wilsgaard T. Pasienttilfredshet - et godt kvalitetsmål? [Patient satisfaction - a good measure of quality?]. Tidsskrift for Velferdsforskning 2005;8(1):19–33.
   Google Scholar
• Suhonen R, Papastavrou E, Efstathiou G, Tsangari H, Jarosova D, Leino-Kilpi H, Patiraki E, et al. Patient satisfaction as an outcome of individualised nursing care. Scand J Caring Sci 2012;26:372–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathiesen TP, Freil M, Willaing I, Jørgensen T, Andreasen AH, Ladelund S, Harling H. Do patient Differentiate Between Aspects of Healthcare Quality? J Healthcare Qual 2007;29:1–10.
   Google Scholar