In today's society, the access to and use of everyday technology, such as cell phones and internet-based services, can be claimed as a condition for participation in many tasks in everyday life. This study aims to determine and compare levels of perceived access to and difficulties in the use of common everyday technologies in public space, among people with acquired brain injury compared with controls.
Methods
The perceived access to and difficulty in the use of 14 everyday technologies were investigated in a sample with acquired brain injury (n = 59; returned to work, n = 28; not returned to work, n = 31) and matched controls (n = 52) using the everyday technology use questionnaire.
Findings
Perceived access to the everyday technologies was generally high. The potential to use each of the everyday technologies independently or with minor difficulties significantly differed between controls and persons with acquired brain injury in eight of the 14 everyday technologies. In particular, difficulties were found among those persons with acquired brain injury who had not returned to work.
Conclusion
People with acquired brain injury perceive that they have access to everyday technologies commonly used in public space, but the everyday technology difficulty is not always satisfactorily matched to their ability to use it. To enable participation in society, it is important to consider both the accessibility and usability of everyday technology.
BondTGFoxCM (2007) Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
2.
Brorsson A (2013) Access to everyday activities in public space: Views of people with dementia. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Depart-ment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society. Division of Occupational Therapy, Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet.
3.
BühlerCEngelenJEmilianiPL (2011) Technology and inclusion – Past, present and foreseeable future. Technology & Disability23(3): 101–114.
4.
CiceroneKD (2004) Participation as an outcome of traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation19(6): 494–501.
5.
DurocherEGibsonBERappoltS (2014) Occupational justice: A conceptual review. Journal of Occupational Science21(4): 418–430.
FallahpourMNygårdLKottorpA (2014) Perceived difficulties in everyday technology use in people with acquired brain injury: Comparison to controls. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine46: 635–641.
8.
FisherAG (2009) Occupational Therapy Intervention Process Model. A Model for Planning and Implementing Top-Down, Client-Centered and Occupation-Based Interventions, Fort Collins, USA: Three Star Press Inc.
9.
HåggströmALarsson LundM (2008) The complexity of participation in daily life: A qualitative study of the experiences of persons with acquired brain injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine40(2): 89–95.
10.
HammellKRWIwamaMK (2012) Well-being and occupational rights: An imperative for critical occupational therapy. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy19(5): 385–394.
11.
JungM-LLoriaK (2010) Acceptance of Swedish e-health services. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare3: 55–63.
12.
KassbergA-CMalinowskyCJacobssonL (2013) Ability to manage everyday technology after acquired brain injury. Brain Injury27(13–14): 1583–1588.
13.
KottorpANygårdL (2011) Development of a short-form assessment for detection of subtle activity limitations: Can use of everyday technology distinguish between MCI and Alzheimer's disease?. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics11(5): 647–655.
14.
Larsson LundMNygårdLKottorpA (2013) Perceived difficulty in the use of everyday technology in people with acquired brain injury with a special focus on work. Disability and Rehabilitation36(19): 1618–1625.
15.
LinacreJM (2004) Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. In: SmithEVSmithRM (eds) Introduction to Rasch Measurement, Maple Grove: Jam Press, pp. 258–278.
McLeanAMJarusTHubleyAM (2013) Associations between social participation and subjective quality of life for adults with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Disability & Rehabilitation36(17): 1409–1418.
18.
MalinowskyCLarsson LundM (2014) The association between perceived and observed ability to use everyday technology in people of working age with ABI. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy21(6): 465–472.
19.
MalinowskyCAlmkvistOKottorpA (2010) Ability to manage everyday technology: A comparison of persons with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and older adults without cognitive impairment. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology5(6): 462–469.
20.
MalinowskyCNygårdLKottorpA (2014) Using a screening tool to evaluate potential use of e-health services for older people with and without cognitive impairment. Aging & Mental Health18(3): 340–345.
21.
MortonMWehmanP (1995) Psychosocial and emotional sequelae of individuals with traumatic brain injury: A literature review and recommendations. Brain injury9(1): 81–92.
22.
NilssonITownsendE (2010) Occupational justice—Bridging theory and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy17(1): 57–63.
23.
NygårdLStarkhammarS (2007) The use of everyday technology by people with dementia living alone: Mapping out the difficulties. Aging & Mental Health11(2): 144–155.
24.
Nygård L (2012) Manual to the revised questionnaire about everyday technology in home and society: Everyday technology use questionnaire (ETUQ II) & Short ETUQ (S-ETUQ). Stockholm Karolinska Institutet, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Occupational Therapy.
25.
OlsonKEO'BrienMARogersWA (2011) Diffusion of technology: Frequency of use for younger and older adults. Ageing International36(1): 123–145.
26.
PatomellaA-HKottorpANygårdL (2013) Design and management features of everyday technology that challenge older adults. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy76(9): 390–398.
27.
ReistetterTAAbreuBC (2005) Appraising evidence on community integration following brain injury: A systematic review. Occupational Therapy International12(4): 196–217.
28.
RosenbergLKottorpAWinbladB (2009a) Perceived difficulty in everyday technology use among older adults with or without cognitive deficits. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy16(4): 216–226.
29.
RosenbergLNygårdLKottorpA (2009b) Everyday technology use questionnaire (ETUQ) – Psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of competence in technology use. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health29(2): 52–62.
30.
SaltychevMEskolaMTenovuoO (2013) Return to work after traumatic brain injury: Systematic review. Brain Injury27(13–14): 1516–1527.
31.
Socialdepartmentet (2011) En strategi för genomförande av funktionshinderspolitiken 2011–2016 [A strategy for implementing disability policies in Sweden 2011–2016], Stockholm: Socialdepartmentet.
32.
TownsendEWilcockAA (2004) Occupational justice and client-centred practice: A dialogue in progress. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy71(2): 75–87.
33.
WilsonJPettigrewLTeasdaleG (2000) Emotional and cognitive consequences of head injury in relation to the Glasgow Outcome Scale. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry69(2): 204–209.
34.
WilsonJTPettigrewLETeasdaleGM (1998) Structured interviews for the Glasgow outcome scale and the extended Glasgow outcome scale: Guidelines for their use. Journal of Neurotrauma15(8): 573–585.
