Assistive technology selection to outcome assessment: the benefit of having a service delivery protocol

Scherer, Marcia J.

doi:10.1080/17483107.2019.1664649

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar trends have also been observed in previous studies conducted in other countries, which have shown that general practitioners and case managers have limited knowledge about AT in general [12,30,44,45]. Previous studies have also shown different perspectives among users, professionals and suppliers when assessing the needs for assistive technology [22][23][24][25]. Moreover, another study conducted in Norway revealed a lack of knowledge about assistive activity technology among important actors in the field of assistive activity technology [19].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…However, to date, studies on the overall service delivery process for AT have been few [4]. Furthermore, identifying particular outcomes has shown to be challenging due to the differing mandates and interests of the varied stakeholders [22]. In the Matching Person and Technology assessment process [23], consumer perspectives are considered to be affected by psychological and sociocultural factors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“You have to argue the right way”: user involvement in the service delivery process for assistive activity technology

Pedersen

Kermit

Söderström

2020

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This article critically examines user-involvement in the service delivery process for assistive activity technology. Methodology: Data were collected in semi-structured interviews with 44 end users of assistive activity technology and in focus group interviews with 11 professionals at Norway's Assistive Technology Centre. Data was analysed according to a stepwise deductive-inductive approach. Findings: Flawed organisational principles like division of responsibility, unclear regulations, and a lack of competence with assistive activity technology among service professionals have hindered user involvement in the service delivery process. Conclusion: A missing knowledge of assistive activity technology among professionals and the current organisation of services creates barriers for a positive collaboration with users in the service delivery process of assistive activity technology. ä IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe spread of information among users and courses for professionals should be expanded to ensure the necessary competence with assistive activity technology within the service delivery process. In developing the service delivery process for assistive activity technology, professionals should act less as guardians of traditional functional requirements and more as active providers of different technological solutions. The service delivery process for assistive activity technology should allow long-term testing to identify relevant social and physical factors affecting the use of this type of technology, before delivery. Guarantees and complaint systems should be established in the service delivery process for assistive activity technology. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“You have to argue the right way”: user involvement in the service delivery process for assistive activity technology

Pedersen

Kermit

Söderström

2020

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, improving the efficacy of automatically delivered step instructions and thus improving the participants' performance of multistep activities can be considered a highly valued objective within any rehabilitation context (Desmond et al, 2018;Lancioni et al, 2017;Lin et al, 2018;O'Neill et al, 2018;Pérez-Fuster et al, 2019). The possibility of approaching such an objective with relatively simple and accessible technology makes the objective realistic for a number of daily contexts irrespective of the fact that their technical expertness and financial resources may be fairly limited (Boot et al, 2018;Borg, 2019;De Witte et al, 2018;Scherer, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tying the Delivery of Activity Step Instructions to Step Performance: Evaluating a Basic Technology System with People with Special Needs

Lancioni

O’Reilly

Sigafoos

et al. 2021

Adv Neurodev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study assessed a new technology system that automatically presented instructions for multistep activities to people with intellectual and sensory disabilities. The instructions were presented one at a time, and tied to the participants’ performance of the activity steps. That is, a new instruction occurred only after the participant had carried out the previous step. Methods The new system involved a Samsung Galaxy A10 with Android 10.0 operating system equipped with Amazon Alexa, MacroDroid, and Philips Hue applications and a Philips Hue indoor motion sensor. The assessment of the new system was carried out with seven participants who were exposed to two or three pairs of activities. They performed one activity of each pair with the new system and the other with a system presenting instructions at preset time intervals according to an alternating treatments design that included a cross-over phase. Results The mean percentage of correct responses tended to be higher with the new system than with the control system. Paired t-tests carried out to compare the sessions with the new system with the sessions with the control system of each participant showed that the differences in correct responses between the two sets of sessions were statistically significant for all participants. Conclusions The new system may represent a useful (advantageous) tool for supporting people like those involved in this study in the performance of multistep activities.

show abstract

“…The cost of the present technology system may be estimated at about US $600 (ie, approximately US $150 for the Samsung smartphone, US $200 for the 4 Philips Hue sensors, US $100 for the 4 mini speakers, and US $150 for the Philips Hue Bridge, the Philips Hue smart bulb, and the 4G Long-Term Evolution Wi-Fi router). Although this cost is significant, one may argue that the present technology system (1) can be one of the few options available to enable people with intellectual and visual disabilities to manage independent occupation and mobility and ( 2) is fairly easy to operate for personnel in charge of the sessions and friendly for the participants [41][42][43][44]. The main obstacle rehabilitation professionals may encounter in accessing such a technology system is represented by the fact that it is not a ready-made (off-the-shelf) tool but needs to be set up through the aforementioned commercial components.…”

Section: Principal Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology-Aided Spatial Cues, Instructions, and Preferred Stimulation for Supporting People With Intellectual and Visual Disabilities in Their Occupational Engagement and Mobility: Usability Study

Lancioni

Singh

O’Reilly

et al. 2021

JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Persons with severe or profound intellectual disability and visual impairment tend to be passive and sedentary, and technology-aided intervention may be required to improve their condition without excessive demands on staff time. Objective This study aims to extend the assessment of technology-aided interventions for supporting functional occupational engagement and mobility in 7 people with intellectual disability and visual impairment and to use a technology system that is simpler and less expensive than those previously used. Methods The technology system involved a Samsung Galaxy A10, 4 Philips Hue indoor motion sensors, and 4 mini speakers. Within each session, the participants were to collect 18 objects (ie, one at a time) from 3 different areas (stations) located within a large room, bring each of the objects to a central desk, and put away each of those objects there. For each object, the participants received verbal (spatial) cues for guiding them to the area where the object was to be collected, a verbal instruction (ie, request) to take an object, verbal (spatial) cues for guiding them to the central desk, a verbal instruction to put away the object collected, and praise and preferred stimulation. Results During baseline, the frequency of responses completed correctly (objects collected and put away independently) was 0 or near 0. During the intervention phase (ie, with the support of the technology setup), the frequency increased for all participants, reaching a mean of almost 18 (out of 18 response opportunities) for 6 participants and about 13 for the remaining participant. The mean session duration ranged from 12 to 30 minutes. Conclusions A program, such as the one used in this study, can be useful in promoting occupational engagement and mobility in persons with intellectual disability and visual impairment.

show abstract

Assistive technology selection to outcome assessment: the benefit of having a service delivery protocol

Abstract: This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Cited by 15 publications

References 7 publications

“You have to argue the right way”: user involvement in the service delivery process for assistive activity technology

“You have to argue the right way”: user involvement in the service delivery process for assistive activity technology

Tying the Delivery of Activity Step Instructions to Step Performance: Evaluating a Basic Technology System with People with Special Needs

Technology-Aided Spatial Cues, Instructions, and Preferred Stimulation for Supporting People With Intellectual and Visual Disabilities in Their Occupational Engagement and Mobility: Usability Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About