Factors that predict the post-discharge use of recommended assistive technology (AT)

Abstract

The findings suggest that occupational therapists need to ensure that AT is recommended using a client-centred approach, where clients' perceptions and opinions are considered along with their needs and goals. The Matching Person to Technology (MPT) Model is suggested as a useful framework to guide the process of recommending AT.

Identifying the Values and Preferences of Prosthetic Users

“…3 Sullivan states that 'facts known only by physicians need to be supplemented by values known only by patients', 27 and many studies emphasize the need to involve prosthetic users in device selection due to its association with improving rates of use and preventing abandonment. 3,5,6 There are currently no clinical measures available to measure patient preferences within the prosthetic prescription setting. However models such at the Matching Person and Technology model 3 offer helpful guidelines for garnering patient preferences and opinions, and measures such as the Patient Generated Index (PGI) and Goal-Attainment Scaling (GAS) are rehabilitation tools that cater to individual preferences when generating achievable goals for patients.…”

“…These phrases were written on the right hand side of the grid, opposite the original phrase created, creating a completed construct. In the final phase, participants were asked to rate each of the elements along each of the constructs in a stepwise fashion, using a 10-point rating scale (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10). Participants were told the phrase on the left of the grid stands for '1' end of the scale and the phrase on the right of the grid for '10'.…”

“…It has also been recommended that when selecting a prosthesis for an individual, attention should be directed at the specific needs of the individual, 4 that prosthetic users are provided with a choice of available options, 3 and are involved in prosthesis selection. 5,6 While a number of factors including equipment, functional utility, and individual variables such as motivation have been associated with non-use, [7][8][9] there has been a growing recognition within the assistive technology literature of the importance of consumer preferences and values in understanding non-use. 3 For one individual a given prosthesis may represent a restoration of independence and embody ability.…”

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

“…There are instruments which evaluate user satisfaction (e.g., the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with AT 5 ), the effectiveness of AT (e.g., the Individual Prioritized Problem Assessment 6 ), the effects of an AT on the user's life (e.g., the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale 7 ) and the effects on the user's family (e.g., the Family Impact of Assistive Technology Scale 8 ). At present there is no standardized instrument for investigating AT abandonment although the phenomenon has been the subject of surveys, particularly in the United States [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] , but also in Australia 18 , Italy [19][20][21] , and The Netherlands 22,23 .…”

Preferencje osób z dysfunkcją wzroku w zakresie korzystania z informacyjno-komunikacyjnych technologii wspomagających

“…Jednak są lepiej dostosowane do indywidualnych potrzeb użytkowników (D'Andrea 2012). Mimo to formułowana jest teza, iż społeczne [7] koszty użytkowania technologii wspomagających mogą być wyższe (w niektó-rych badaniach pomoce te postrzegane są w kategoriach znaczników ułomności, konstruujących negatywnie tożsamość jednostek) (Söderström, Ytterhus 2010;Ravneberg 2009;Wielandt, McKenna, Tooth, Strong 2006). Urządzenia z głów-nego nurtu rynkowego natomiast są tańsze, łatwiejsze w użytkowaniu i w zakresie dostępu do wsparcia technicznego, nie są jednak tak dobrze dostosowane do zindywidualizowanych potrzeb użytkowników (mimo to niektórzy z nich wolą laptop niż notatnik brajlowski).…”