Assistive Technology Makerspaces Promote Capability of Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Boccardi, Alyssa; Szucs, Kimberly A.; Ebuenyi, Ikenna D.; Mhatre, Anand

doi:10.3390/soc12060155

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In more detail, QUEST 2.0 has been administered to many clinical conditions, including SCI [ 26 ], neuromuscular or musculoskeletal disorders (eg, rheumatoid arthritis) [ 46 ], and diseases of the nervous system and sense organs (eg, low vision) [ 35 , 47 ]. With regard to the evaluated ADs, QUEST 2.0 was used to evaluate user satisfaction in using 4 different categories of ADs: mobility [ 26 ], communication and information management [ 47 , 48 ], domestic activities [ 46 , 49 ], and controlling devices [ 32 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, the 12 used tools allowed for assessing 5 domains, functional efficacy (3/12, 25%), satisfaction (2/12, 17%), psychosocial impact (2/12, 17%), quality of life (2/12, 17%), caregiver burden (2/12, 17%), and usability (1/12, 8%). In detail, 3 articles assessed satisfaction using QUEST 2.0 [ 46 , 49 ] and Life-H [ 37 ]. Only 1 article evaluated the usability of APs regarding the acceptability of ADs [ 44 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Available Assistive Technology Outcome Measures: Systematic Review

Borgnis,

Desideri,

Converti

et al. 2023

JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The World Health Organization claimed that measuring outcomes is necessary to understand the benefits of assistive technology (AT) and create evidence-based policies and systems to ensure universal access to it. In clinical practice, there is an increasing need for standardized methods to track AT interventions using outcome assessments. Objective This review provides an overview of the available outcome measures that can be used at the follow-up stage of any AT intervention and integrated into daily clinical or service practice. Methods We systematically searched for original manuscripts regarding available and used AT outcome measures by searching for titles and abstracts in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to March 2023. Results We analyzed 955 articles, of which 50 (5.2%) were included in the review. Within these, 53 instruments have been mentioned and used to provide an AT outcome assessment. The most widely used tool is the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, followed by the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Technology Scale. Moreover, the identified measures addressed 8 AT outcome domains: functional efficacy, satisfaction, psychosocial impact, caregiver burden, quality of life, participation, confidence, and usability. The AT category Assistive products for activities and participation relating to personal mobility and transportation was the most involved in the reviewed articles. Conclusions Among the 53 cited instruments, only 17 (32%) scales were designed to evaluate specifically assistive devices. Moreover, 64% (34/53) of the instruments were only mentioned once to denote poor uniformity and concordance in the instruments to be used, limiting the possibility of comparing the results of studies. This work could represent a good guide for promoting the use of validated AT outcome measures in clinical practice that can be helpful to AT assessment teams in their everyday activities and the improvement of clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Available Assistive Technology Outcome Measures: Systematic Review

Borgnis,

Desideri,

Converti

et al. 2023

JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A part of scholars applied the existing single method, technique or principle to the development and design of APs and implemented cases for validation. For example, participatory design ( 66 ), synesthetic design ( 67 ), Quality Function Deployment (QFD) ( 68 ), AHP ( 69 ), Sensory Substitution (SS) ( 70 ) and Makerspaces ( 71 ). Some other scholars have attempted to integrate different well-established methods to create a completer and more integrated framework.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting active aging through assistive product design innovation: a preference-based integrated design framework

Zhang

Wang

2023

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWith the accelerating trend of global aging, over one billion people need to use one or more types of assistive products. However, the high abandonment rate of current assistive products is affecting the quality of life of the older adults, posing challenges to public health. Accurately capturing the preference factors of the older adults in the design process is an important way to improve the acceptance of assistive products. In addition, a systematic approach is needed to translate these preference factors into innovative product solutions. These two issues are less addressed in existing research.MethodsFirst, the evaluation grid method was used to conduct in-depth interviews with users and extract the structure of preference factors for assistive products. Quantification theory type I was used to calculate the weight of each factor. Secondly, universal design principles, TRIZ theory's contradiction analysis techniques, and invention principles were used to translate the preference factors into design guidelines. Then, finite structure method (FSM), morphological chart, and CAD techniques were used to visualize the design guidelines as alternatives. Finally, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to evaluate and rank the alternatives.ResultsA Preference-based Assistive Product Design Model (PAPDM) was proposed. The model includes three stages: definition, ideation, and evaluation. A case study on walking aid demonstrated the execution of PAPDM. The results show that 28 preference factors influence the four psychological needs of the older adults: sense of security, sense of independence, self-esteem, and sense of participation. These psychological needs were reflected in the shape, color, material, universality, user-friendly, reliability, and smart functions of assistive products. The preference factors were transformed into five design guidelines, and three alternatives were generated. Finally, the evaluation concludes that solution C was the optimal solution.ConclusionThe PAPDM framework provides designers with a transparent, progressive approach to designing assistive products that meet unique needs and preferences of older adults. This enhances objectivity and scientific rigor in assistive product development, avoiding blind design and production. By considering the perspective of older adults from the outset, we can avoid high abandonment rates of assistive products and contribute to promoting active aging.

show abstract

“…Country-level AT policy is critically evaluated through a capability lens within Russia (Shoshmin et al [7]), India, Nepal, the Philippines and South Korea (Gupta et al [8]). Innovations in provision designed to enhance capabilities are described by Maalim and MacLachlan [9] (the AT Passport in Ireland) and by Boccardi et al [10] (Makerspaces in North America). Provision is revisited using the capability approach perspective of 'each person as an end' for assistive technology users in Hungary (Menich [11]) and Argentina (Layton et al [12]).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%