Satisfaction of users with assistive technology service delivery: An exploratory analysis of experiences of parents of children with physical and multiple disabilities

References

• Karmiloff-Smith A, D’Souza D, Dekker T, Van Herwegen J, Xu F, Rodic M, Ansari D. Genetic and environmental vulnerabilities in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2012;109(Supplement 2):17261–17265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law M, King G, King S, Kertoy M, Hurley P, Rosenbaum P, Young N, Hanna S. Patterns of participation in recreational and leisure activities among children with complex physical disabilities. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2006;48:337–342
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bøttcher L. Children with spastic cerebral palsy, their cognitive functioning, and social participation: A review. Child Neuropsychology 2010;16:209–228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bøttcher L, Dammeyer J. Disability as a risk factor? Development of psychopathology in children with disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2013;34:3607–3617
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe [AAATE]. Service Delivery Systems for Assistive Technology in Europe; 2012. Available from: http://www.aaate.net/sites/default/files/ATServiceDelivery_PositionPaper.pdf [last accessed 08 Jul 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Dugan L, Campbell P, Wilcox M. Making decisions about assistive technology with infants and toddlers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 2006;26:25–32
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson S, Skelton H, Rosenbaum P. Assistive devices for children with functional impairments: Impact on child and caregiver function. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2008;50:89–98
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancioni G, O’Reilly M, Singh N, Sigafoos J, Oliva D, Baccani S, Bosco A, Stasolla F. Technological aids to promote basic developmental achievements by children with multiple disabilities: Evaluation of two cases. Cognitive Processing 2004;5:232–238
   Google Scholar
• Cook A, Adams K, Encarnação P, Alvarez L. The role of assisted manipulation in cognitive development. Developmental Neurorehabilitation 2012;15:136–148
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rispoli M, Franco J, van der Meer L, Lang R, Camargo S. The use of speech generating devices in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Developmental Neurorehabilitation 2010;13:276–293
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copley J, Ziviani J. Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occupational Therapy International 2004;11:229–243
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Østensjø I. Assistive Devices for Children with Disabilities. In: Söderback I, editor. International handbook of occupational therapy interventions. New York: Springer; 2009. pp 141–146
   Google Scholar
• Judge S. Family-centered assistive technology assessment and intervention practices for early intervention. Infants & Young Children 2002;15:60–68
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desideri L, Roentgen U, Hoogerwerf E, de Witte L. Recommending assistive technology (AT) for children with multiple disabilities: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis of models and instruments for AT professionals. Technology and Disability 2013;25:3–13
   Google Scholar
• Mumford L, Lam R, Wright V, Chau T. An access technology delivery protocol for children with severe and multiple disabilities: A case demonstration. Developmental Neurorehabilitation 2013;17:232–242
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren C. Cost effectiveness and efficiency in assistive technology service delivery. Assistive Technology 1993;5:61–65
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Witte L, Knops H, Pyfers L, Röben P, Johnson I, Andrich R, Paganin A, Parker M, Forsberg S. European Service Delivery System in Rehabilitation Technology: A Comprehensive Description of Service Delivery Systems of 16 European Countries. HEART (Horizontal European Activities of Rehabilitation Technology) Line C. 1994. iRv, Institute for Rehabilitation Research: Hoensbroek. Available from: http://portale.siva.it/files/doc/library/a416_1_ATServiceDelivery_HEART_ReportC51.pdf [last accessed 20 Nov 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Lee H, Templeton R. Ensuring equal access to technology: Providing assistive technology for students with disabilities. Theory into Practice 2008;47:212–219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adya M, Samant D, Scherer M, Killeen M, Morris M. Assistive/rehabilitation technology, disability, and service delivery models. Cognitive Processing 2012;13:75–78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fauconnier J, Dickinson H, Beckung E, Marcelli M, McManus V, Michelsen S, Parkes J, Parkinson K, Thyen U, Arnaud C, et al. Participation in life situations of 8–12 year old children with cerebral palsy: Cross sectional European study. BMJ: British Medical Journal 2009;338:b1458
   Google Scholar
• Wise PH. Emerging technologies and their impact on disability. The Future of Children 2012;22:169–191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullen K, McAnaney D, Dolphin C, Delaney S, Stapleton P. Research on the provision of Assistive Technology in Ireland and other countries to support independent living across the life cycle. 2012. Available from: http://www.nda.ie/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/797AD755B56A82A580257A4D0031A2B6?OpenDocument [last accessed 10 Jul 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Borsci S. The use and non-use of assistive technology in Italy: Preliminary data. 11th AAATE Conference: Everyday technology for independence and care; 2011 Aug 31–Sep 2; Maastricht. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 979 p
   Google Scholar
• Steel E, de Witte L. Advances in European Assistive Technology service delivery and recommendations for further improvement. Technology and Disability 2011;23:131–138
   Google Scholar
• Grol R, Wensing M, Mainz J, Jung H, Ferreira P, Hearnshaw H, Hjortdahl P, Olesen F, Reis S, Ribacke M, European Task Force on Patient Evaluations of General Practice Care (EUROPEP), et al. Patients in Europe evaluate general practice care: An international comparison. British Journal of General Practice 2000;50:882–887
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawthers A, Pransky G, Peterson L, Himmelstein J. Rethinking quality in the context of persons with disability. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2003;15:287–299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priest N, May E. Laptop computers and children with disabilities: Factors influencing success. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 2001;48:11–23
   Google Scholar
• Parette H, Brotherson M. Family-centered and culturally responsive assistive technology decision making. Infants & Young Children 2004;17:355–367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKean G, Thurston W, Scott C. Bridging the divide between families and health professionals’ perspectives on family-centred care. Health Expectations 2005;8:74–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolson A, Moir L, Millsteed J. Impact of assistive technology on family caregivers of children with physical disabilities: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 2012;7:345–349
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ryan S, Campbell K, Rigby P. Reliability of the Family Impact of Assistive Technology Scale for families of young children with cerebral palsy. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2007;88:1436–1440
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey R, Parette H, Stoner J, Angell M, Carroll K. Family members’ perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication device use. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 2006;37:50–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kling A, Campbell P, Wilcox J. Young children with physical disabilities: Caregiver perspectives about assistive technology. Infants & Young Children 2010;23:169–183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson K, Balandin S, Stancliffe R. Australian parents’ experiences of speech generating device (SGD) service delivery. Developmental Neurorehabilitation 2013;17:75–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hetzroni O. Augmentative and alternative communication in Israel: Results from a family survey. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2002;18:255–266
   Google Scholar
• Newton C, Clarke M, Donlan C, Wright J, Lister C, Cherguit J. Parents’ expectations and perceptions concerning the provision of communication aids by the Communication Aids Project (CAP). Child Language Teaching and Therapy 2007;23:47–65
   Google Scholar
• Telfer S, Solomonidis S, Spence W. An investigation of teaching staff members’ and parents’ views on the current state of adaptive seating technology and provision. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 2010;5:14–24
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ivankova N, Creswell J, Stick S. Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods 2006;18:3–20
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan D. Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research 1998;8:362–376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desideri L, Mingardi A, Stefanelli B, Tanzini D, Bitelli C, Roentgen U, de Witte L. Assessing children with multiple disabilities for assistive technology: A framework for quality assurance. Technology and Disability 2013;25:159–166
   Google Scholar
• Desideri L, Ioele F, Roentgen U, Gelderblom GJ, de Witte L. Development of a team-based method for assuring the quality of assistive technology documentation. Assistive Technology 2014;26:175
   Google Scholar
• Donabedian A. The quality of care: How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988;260:1743–1748
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sund T, Iwarsson S, Andersen M, Brandt Å. Documentation of and satisfaction with the service delivery process of electric powered scooters among adult users in different national contexts. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 2013;8:151–160
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yun G, Trumbo C. Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail, & web form. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2000;6
   Google Scholar
• Wessels R, Dijcks B, Soede M, Gelderblom GJ, de Witte L. Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview. Technology and Disability 2003;15:231–238
   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. Technology and Disability 2002;14:101–105
   Google Scholar
• Dijcks B, Wessels R, De Vlieger S, Post M. KWAZO, a new instrument to assess the quality of service delivery in assistive technology provision. Disability & Rehabilitation 2006;28:909–914
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desideri L, Bitelli C, Brandan V, de Witte L. The Employment of KWAZO with Parents of Children with Disabilities in an Italian Region: Preliminary Data on Scale Adaptation and Validation. Proceedings of the 12th biennial European conference of the Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe, AAATE 2013, p. 1059–1063
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald S, Newburn Cook C, Schopflocher D, Richter S. Addressing nonresponse bias in postal surveys. Public Health Nursing 2009;26:95–105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology: QUEST version 2.0; 2000. Available from: http://www.midss.org/sites/default/files/questmanual_final_electronic20version_0.pdf [last accessed 14 Jul 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Krueger R, Morgan D, King J. Focus group kit. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage; 1998
   Google Scholar
• Bradley E, Curry L, Devers K. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services Research 2007;42:1758–1772
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006;3:77–101
   Google Scholar
• Ripat J, Booth A. Characteristics of assistive technology service delivery models: Stakeholder perspectives and preferences. Disability & Rehabilitation 2005;27:1461–1470
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology 1993;5:36–45
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fuhrer M, Jutai J, Scherer M, DeRuyter F. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability & Rehabilitation 2003;25:1243–1251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessels R, Persson J, Lorentsen Ø, Andrich R, Ferrario M, Oortwijn W, VanBeekum T, Brodin H, de Witte L. IPPA: Individually prioritised problem assessment. Technology and Disability 2002;14:141–145
   Google Scholar
• Judge S. Accessing and funding assistive technology for young children with disabilities. Early Childhood Special Education 2000;28:125–131
   Google Scholar
• Angelo D, Jones S, Kokoska S. Family perspective on augmentative and alternative communication: Families of young children. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1995;11:193–202
   Google Scholar
• Parette H, Peterson-Karlan G. Facilitating student achievement with assistive technology. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 2007;42:387–393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar