Evaluation Tools for Assistive Technologies: A Scoping Review

被引:18
作者
Tao, Gordon [1 ,2 ]
Charm, Geoffrey [1 ,3 ]
Kabacinska, Katarzyna [4 ]
Miller, William C. [1 ,2 ]
Robillard, Julie M. [4 ,5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Vancouver Coastal Res Inst, GF Strong Rehabil Res Lab, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[2] Univ British Columbia, Dept Occupat Sci & Occupat Therapy, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[3] Univ British Columbia, Dept Integrated Sci, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[4] Univ British Columbia, Dept Med, Div Neurol, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[5] British Columbia Womens & Childrens Hosp, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[6] British Columbia Womens & Childrens Hosp, Patient Experience, 4480 Oak St, Vancouver, BC V6H 3N1, Canada
来源
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION | 2020年 / 101卷 / 06期
关键词
Health care quality; access; and evaluation; Outcome assessment; health care; Rehabilitation; Self-help devices; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY; IMPLANT-RETAINED OVERDENTURE; HEARING-AID OUTCOMES; LOWER-LIMB AMPUTEES; SPINAL-CORD-INJURY; WHEELED MOBILITY; REHABILITATION QUESTIONNAIRE; TELEMEDICINE SATISFACTION; INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.apmr.2020.01.008
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
Objective: Assistive technologies (ATs) support independence and well-being in people with cognitive, perceptual, and physical limitations. Given the increasing availability and diversity of ATs, evaluating the usefulness of current and emerging ATs is crucial for informed comparison. We aimed to chart the landscape and development of AT evaluation tools (ETs; ATETs) across disparate fields in order to improve the process of AT evaluation and development. Data Sources: We performed a scoping review of ATETs through database searching of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, HaPI, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, and Compendex as well as citation mining. Study Selection: Articles explicitly referencing ATETs were retained for screening. We included ETs if they were designed to specifically evaluate ATs. Data Extraction: We extracted 5 attributes of ATETs: AT category, construct evaluated, conceptual frameworks, type of end user input used for ATET development, and presence of validity testing. Data Synthesis: From screening 23,434 records, we included 159 ATETs. Specificity of tools ranged from single to general ATs across 40 AT categories. Satisfaction, functional performance, and usage were the most common constructs of 103 identified. We identified 34 conceptual frameworks across 53 ETs. Finally, 36% incorporated end user input and 80% showed validation testing. Conclusions: We characterized a wide range of AT categories with diverse approaches to their evaluation based on varied conceptual frameworks. Combining these frameworks in future ATETs may provide more holistic views of AT usefulness. ATET selection may be improved with guidelines for conceptually reconciling results of disparate ATETs. Future ATET development may benefit from more integrated approaches to end user engagement. (C) 2020 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine
引用
收藏
页码:1025 / 1040
页数:16
相关论文
共 205 条
  • [1] Prosthesis donning and doffing questionnaire: Development and validation
    Abu Osman, Noor Azuan
    Eshraghi, Arezoo
    Gholizadeh, Hossein
    Abas, Wan Abu Bakar Wan
    Lechler, Knut
    [J]. PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 41 (06) : 571 - 578
  • [2] A Quality-of-Life Scale for Assistive Technology: Results of a Pilot Study of Aging and Technology
    Agree, Emily M.
    Freedman, Vicki A.
    [J]. PHYSICAL THERAPY, 2011, 91 (12): : 1780 - 1788
  • [3] Alwin J., 2012, Technology Disability, V24, P59, DOI DOI 10.3233/TAD-2012-0334
  • [4] Development and validation of a questionnaire for hearing implant users to self-assess their auditory abilities in everyday communication situations: the Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index (HISQUI19)
    Amann, Edda
    Anderson, Ilona
    [J]. ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA, 2014, 134 (09) : 915 - 923
  • [5] App Chronic Disease Checklist: Protocol to Evaluate Mobile Apps for Chronic Disease Self-Management
    Anderson, Kevin
    Burford, Oksana
    Emmerton, Lynne
    [J]. JMIR RESEARCH PROTOCOLS, 2016, 5 (04):
  • [6] Andrich R, 1998, DISABIL REHABIL, V20, P1
  • [7] Andrich R., 2002, Technology and Disability, V14, P95, DOI DOI 10.3233/TAD-2002-14303
  • [8] [Anonymous], 2001, ICF: International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health
  • [9] [Anonymous], TECHNOLOGY DISABILIT
  • [10] [Anonymous], DEV FUTURE DIR TECHN