JACO increased performance in manipulation and facilitated the accomplishment of certain life habits. Users' increased participation in their life habits may slightly decrease the amount of caregiver assistance required. Future studies are needed to clarify its economic potential, its impact on caregivers' burden, including paid caregivers, and the variability in the tasks performed using JACO. Implications for Rehabilitation The use of JACO may have positive impacts on its users in terms of upper extremity performance, accomplishment of life habits, satisfaction with the device and psychosocial impacts. More research is needed to quantify more accurately the economic potential of the long-term use of JACO, to explore the factors related to the variability in the tasks performed using JACO, and to clarify the impact of JACO on caregivers' burden, including paid caregivers.

Background. Robotic arms may help users perform various activities. Even though robotic arms are commercially available, their impacts are still poorly understood. Purpose. This scoping review aimed to identify the potential impacts of using robotic arms for individuals with upper-extremity disabilities and appraise the scientific quality of the selected studies. Method. A search for studies published between 1970 and 2016 was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Compendex, and Scopus. The Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement was used to classify activities in which impacts were evaluated. The quality of each study was rated using McMaster University's critical review form for quantitative studies. Findings. Thirty-six studies were reviewed, which evaluated self-care (21), productivity (33), and leisure (8). The short-term impacts were more commonly documented than long-term impacts. The impacts identified were mostly positive. The studies' mean quality score was 8.8/15. Implications. Additional studies with more rigorous conditions are needed to produce higher-quality scientific evidence of the long-term impacts of robotic arm use. Abré gé Description. Les bras robotisés peuvent aider les utilisateurs à réaliser diverses activités. Bien que les bras robotisés soient disponibles sur le marché, leurs impacts sont encore peu connus. But. Cet examen de la portée avait pour but d'identifier les impacts potentiels de l'utilisation de bras robotisés auprès des personnes ayant des incapacités aux membres supérieurs et d'évaluer la qualité scientifique des études sélectionnées. Mé thodologie. Une recherche a été effectuée en vue de repérer des études publiées entre 1970 et 2016 dans PubMed, Embase, Compendex et Scopus. Le Modèle canadien du rendement et de l'engagement occupationnels a été utilisé pour classer les activités dans lesquelles des impacts étaient évalués. La qualité de chaque étude a été déterminée à l'aide du formulaire d'évaluation critique des études quantitatives de la McMaster University. Ré sultats. Trente-six études évaluant les soins personnels (21), la productivité (33) et les loisirs (8) ont été examinées. Les impacts à court terme étaient documentés plus souvent que les impacts à long terme. Dans l'ensemble, les impacts identifiés étaient positifs. La moyenne des scores de qualité des études était de 8,8/15. Consé quences. Davantage d'études devront être menées dans des conditions plus rigoureuses afin de produire des données probantes de plus grande qualité sur les impacts à long terme de l'utilisation de bras robotisés.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives:This systematic review documents the content and the quality of the psychometric evidence concerning the utilization of the Community Integration Questionnaire for individuals living with a disability other than a traumatic brain injury.Data sources:Medline, Embase, CINAHL, OTseeker and PsycINFO (searched from inception to June 2019).Review methods:Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used for conducting and reporting this review. Studies that investigated at least one psychometric property of the Community Integration Questionnaire for individuals living with a disability other than traumatic brain injury were included. Data extraction and critical methodological appraisal of the articles (MacDermid checklist, COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist) were independently performed and validated by the first two authors.Results:Ten studies representing 3000 individuals met the inclusion criteria. Five populations were documented. There are positive and trustable data regarding internal consistency for adults living with multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury or burns and in mixed samples ( α = 0.71–0.84). Construct validity is fairly documented for adults living with multiple sclerosis or aphasia and in mixed samples. Test–retest reliably is acceptable for adults living with multiple sclerosis (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.91–0.97) as well as responsiveness (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.81). Other psychometric properties could not be demonstrated sufficiently solid.Conclusion:Many psychometric properties of the Community Integration Questionnaire are still poorly evaluated for adults living with a disability other than a traumatic brain injury. However, promising data have been documented in each population included in this review.

No abstract

No abstract