Providing assistive technology in Italy: the perceived delivery process quality as affecting abandonment

References

• Cook AM, Hussey SM. Assistive technologies: principles and practice. 2nd ed. London, UK: Mosby; 2002
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Assistive technology: matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association; 2002
   Google Scholar
• AAATE, EASTIN. Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: Position Paper; 2012. Available from: http://www.aaate.net/ [last accessed 27 Sep 2012]
   Google Scholar
• United States Congress. Assistive Technology Act (Public Law 108–364). 2004
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). A glossary of terms for community health care and services for older persons. Technical report. Geneva: WHO; 2004 Jul 15, 2011. Report No.: WHO/WKC/Tech.Ser./04.2
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO), World Bank. World Report on Disability. Geneva: WHO; 2011. Available from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Scherer MJ. Assistive technology assessment handbook. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2012
   Google Scholar
• ISO. ISO 9999:2011 Assistive products for persons with disability – Classification and terminology. Brussels: CEN 2011
   Google Scholar
• Anand S, Ammar W, Evans T, et al. Report of the Scientific Peer Review Group on Health Systems Performance Assessment. In: Murray CJL, Evans DB, eds. Health systems performance assessment: debates, methods and empiricism. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003:839–913
   Google Scholar
• Stack J, Zarate L, Pastor C, et al. Analysing and federating the European assistive technology ICT industry. Final Report. Brussels: European Commission; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Scherer MJ. The assistive technology assessment model and basic definitions. In: Federici S, Scherer MJ, eds. Assistive technology assessment handbook. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2012:1–10
   Google Scholar
• Estreen M. Europe with free choice of assistive technology. The provision of assistive devices in specific European countries. Vällingby: Swedish Institute of Assistive Technology; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Dijcks BPJ, De Witte LP, Gelderblom GJ, et al. Non-use of assistive technology in The Netherlands: A non-issue? Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2006;1:97–102
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol 1993;5:36–45
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kohn JG, LeBlanc M, Mortola P. Measuring quality and performance of assistive technology: results of a Prospective Monitoring Program. Assist Technol 1994;6:120–5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Borg J, Larsson S, Östergren P-O, et al. User involvement in service delivery predicts outcomes of assistive technology use: a cross-sectional study in Bangladesh. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:330
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin JK, Martin LG, Stumbo NJ, Morrill JH. The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil 2011;6:225–42
   Google Scholar
• Kittel A, Di Marco A, Stewart H. Factors influencing the decision to abandon manual wheelchairs for three individuals with a spinal cord injury. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:106–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen R, Tresse S, Gunnarsson RK. Fewer accidents and better maintenance with active wheelchair check-ups: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Rehabil 2004;18:631–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federici S, Borsci S. The use and non-use of assistive technology in Italy: a pilot study. In: Gelderblom GJ, Soede M, Adriaens L, Miesenberger K, eds. Everyday technology for independence and care: AAATE 2011. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2011:979–86
   Google Scholar
• Cushman LA, Scherer MJ. Measuring the relationship of assistive technology use, functional status over time, and consumer therapist perceptions of ATs. Assist Technol 1996;8:103–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verza R, Carvalho ML, Battaglia MA, Uccelli MM. 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
• De Craen AJM, Westendorp RGJ, Willems CG, et al. Assistive devices and community-based services among 85-year-old community-dwelling elderly in The Netherlands: ownership, use, and need for intervention. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2006;1:199–203
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wessels RD, Dijcks BPJ, Soede M, et al. Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview. Technol Disabil 2003;15:231–8
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Living in the state of stuck: How technologies affect the lives of people with disabilities. 4th ed. Cambridge (MA): Brookline Books; 2005 (Biblioteca).
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Sax CL, Vanbiervliet A, et al. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:1321–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corradi F, Scherer MJ, Lo Presti A. Measuring the assistive technology match. In: Federici S, Scherer MJ, eds. Assistive technology assessment handbook. London, UK: CRC Press; 2012:49–65
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. From people-centered to person-centered services, and back again. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2014;9:1–2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• AAATE. AAATE position paper: a 2003 view on Technology and Disability. 2003 - Available from: http://www.aaate.net/ [last accessed 10 April 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Grandisson M, Hebert M, Thibeault R. A systematic review on how to conduct evaluations in community-based rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2014;36:265–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis C, Polson PG, Wharton C, Rieman J. Testing a walkthrough methodology for theory-based design of walk-up-and-use interfaces. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI '90; 1990 Apr 01–05; Seattle (WA): ACM; 1990:235–42
   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;24:21–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regione Umbria. Piano sanitario regionale 2009/2011 (Atto num. 298 del 28-04-2009) [Umbria Region Health Care Plan 2009–2011]. Bollettino Ufficiale 2009;25:1–428
   Google Scholar
• Camden C, Swaine B, Tetreault S, Bergeron S. SWOT analysis of a pediatric rehabilitation programme: a participatory evaluation fostering quality improvement. Disabil Rehabil 2009;31:1373–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma M. Evaluation in community based rehabilitation programmes: a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis. Asia Pac Disabil Rehab J 2007;18:46–62
   Google Scholar
• Camden C, Swaine B, Tétreault S, Bergeron S. SWOT analysis of a pediatric rehabilitation programme: a participatory evaluation fostering quality improvement. Disabil Rehabil 2009;31:1373–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akins R, Tolson H, Cole B. Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:37
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Good P. Permutation Tests: a practical guide for resampling methods for testing hypotheses. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag; 2000
   Google Scholar
• Linden A, Adams JL, Roberts N. Evaluating disease management program effectiveness. Dis-Manage-Health-Outcomes 2005;13:159–67
   Google Scholar
• Borsci S, Federici S, Mele ML, et al. The bootstrap discovery behaviour model: why five users are not enough to test user experience. In: Alkhalifa EM, Gaid K, eds. Cognitively informed intelligent interfaces: systems design and development. Hershey (PA): IGI Global; 2012:258–79
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Technol Disabil 2002;14:101–5
   Google Scholar
• Mirza M, Gossett Zakrajsek A, Borsci S. The assessment of the environments of use: accessibility, sustainability, and universal design. In: Federici S, Scherer MJ, eds. Assistive technology assessment handbook. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2012:67–81
   Google Scholar
• Leplege A, Gzil F, Cammelli M, et al. Person-centeredness: conceptual and historical perspectives. Disabil Rehabil 2007;29:1555–65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borsci S, Kurosu M, Mele ML, Federici S. Systemic user experience. In: Federici S, Scherer MJ, eds. Assistive technology assessment handbook. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2012:337–59
   Google Scholar