This study sought to determine the relationship of assistive device use, pain, and functional status to severity of physical disability among elderly persons with disabilities. A total of 194 community-based elderly persons were divided into seven groups based on degree of physical disability derived from their Sickness Impact Profile scores. Dependent measures included the functional independence measure (FIM) for activities of daily living (ADLs), the Jette Func tional Status Index-Modified for pain, and the Assistive Technology Used Survey for use of assistive devices. A Kruskall-Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed for each dependent variable. The seven groups showed statistically significant differences (P < .05) in reported pain scores, in functional status as determined by performance on ADL tasks, and in use of assistive devices. The results indicate that the use of assistive devices by elderly persons living in the community is associated with an interaction of several variables that are strongly related to degree of severity of physical disability.
Kovar MGAging in the Eighties: Preliminary Data from the Supplement on Aging to the National Health Interview Survey. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, 1986.
2.
Abyad A., Boyer JTArthritis and aging: Current opinion. Rheumatology.1992;4:153-159.
3.
Labuda D.The impact of technology on geriatric rehabilitation . In: Kemp B, et al, eds. Geriatric Rehabilitation. Boston: Little Brown;1990. 4. Scherer MJ, McKee BGBut will the assistive technology device be used? Proceedings of the 12th Annual RESNA Conference. New Orleans, La: June 25-30, 1989.
4.
TRACE. HyperABLEDATA (stn Ed). Madison, Wisc: TRACE Research and Development Center ; 1992.
5.
Page M., et al. The problems of the selection, provision, and use of aids. In: Bray J, Wright S, eds. The Use of Technology in the Care of the Elderly and the Disabled. Westport, Conn: Greenwood; 1980.
6.
Geiger CMThe utilization of assistive devices by patients discharged from an acute rehabilitation setting. Phys Occup Ther Ger.1990;9:3-25.
7.
McFarland S.Product evaluation—Issues and options provision of assistive technology: Planning and implementation. Washington, DC : Electronics Industries Foundation; 1989.
8.
Cook AMDelivery of assistive devices through a consumer oriented approach. In: Redden MR, Stern VW, eds. Technology for Independent Living. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 1982.
9.
Bynum HS, Rogers JCThe use and effectiveness of assistive devices possessed by patients seen in home care. Occup Ther J Res.1987;7: 181-191.
10.
Zola I.Involving consumers in the rehabilitation process: Easier said than done. In: Redden MR, Stern VW, eds. Technology for Independent Living. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science;1982.
11.
Batavia AI, Hammer GSToward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. J Rehabil Res Dev.1990 ;27:425-436.
12.
Ferrell BA, Ferrell BR, Osterweil D.Pain in the nursing home. J Am Geriatr Soc.1990;38:409-414.
13.
Borgquist LN , Bilsson LT, Lindelow G., Wiklund I., Thorngren KGPerceived health in hip fracture patients: A prospective follow-up of 100 patients. Ageing. 1992;21:109-106.
14.
Barberger-Gateau P., Chaslerie A., Dartigues JF, Commenges D.Health measures correlates in a French elderly community population: The PAQUID study. J Gerontol.1992;47:S88-S95.
15.
Mann WC, Karuza J., Hurren D., Bentley D.Needs of home-based older visually impaired persons for assistive devices . J Vis Impair Blind.1993;87:106-110.
16.
Mann WC, Karuza J., Hurren D., Tomita M.Assistive devices for home-based elderly persons with cognitive impairments . Top Ger Rehabil.1993;8:35-52.
17.
Mann WC, Karuza J., Hurren D., Tomita M., Charvat B.Assistive devices for home-based older stroke survivors. Topics Ger Rehabil.1995;10(3):75-86.
18.
Mann WC, Karuza J., Hurren D., Tomita M.Assistive devices used by home-based elderly persons with arthritis . Am J Occup Ther.1995; 49(8):810-820.
19.
Gilson BS, Gilson JS, Bergner M., Bobbit RA, Kressel S., Pollard WE, Vesselago M.The sickness impact profile: Development of an outcome measure of health care . Am J Pub Health.1975;65:1304-1325.
20.
Mann WC, Hurren D., Karuza J., Tomita M.Needs of home-based older persons for assistive devices: The University at Buffalo Rehabilitation Engineering Center on Aging Consumer Assessments Study . Tech Disabil.1993;2:1-11.
21.
Center for Functional Assessment Research.Guide for use of the uniform data set for medical rehabilitation . Version 3.1, 1990, Buffalo, NY.
22.
Fillenbaum GGMultidimensional Functional Assessment of Older Adults: The Duke Older Americans Resources and Services Procedures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;1988.
23.
Deniston OL , Jette A.A functional status assessment instrument: Validation in an elderly population. Health Serv Res.1980;15:21-34.
24.
Folstein M.Mini-Mental State: A practical method for grading the cognitive status of patients for the clinician. J Psych Res.1975;12: 189-198.
25.
Hamilton BB , Laughlin JA, Granger CV, Kayton RMInter-rater agreement of the seven level functional independence measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1991;72:790. Abstract.
26.
Fricke J., Unsworth C., Worrell D.Reliability of the functional independence measure with occupational therapists . Aust Occup Ther J.1993;40:5-13.
27.
Jette A.Functional status index: Reliability of a chronic disease evaluation instrument . Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1980;61:395-401.
28.
Gitlin LN, Levine R., Geiger C.Adaptive device use by older adults with mixed disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1993;74:149-152.
