Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-3
Matching and accepting assistive technology in multiple sclerosis: A focus group study with people with multiple sclerosis,carers and occupational therapists
To explore experiences and perceptions of assistive technology, 14 people with multiple sclerosis, 5 carers and 4 occupational therapists participated in focus groups. Transcripts were analysed thematically drawing from illness self-regulation theory. Identified themes are as follows: critical multiple sclerosis events (developing symptoms/disability, delayed diagnosis and coping, public reaction and multiple sclerosis progression to assistive technology), matching assistive technology for continued use (acceptance of multiple sclerosis and assistive technology, realistic expectations, occupational therapist responsiveness, timing is crucial and carers and others) and impact of assistive technology (promoting or losing independence, stigma and embarrassment and redefining the carer). Acceptance and communication among those involved ensures assistive technology matches needs and maximises health and psychosocial outcomes.
AspinwallLGTaylorSE (1997) A stitch in time: Self-regulation and proactive coping. Psychological Bulletin121: 417–436.
2.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
3.
ChaudoirSREarnshawVAAndelS (2013) ‘Discredited’ versus ‘discreditable’: Understanding how shared and unique stigma mechanisms affect psychological and physical health disparities. Basic and Applied Social Psychology35(1): 75–87.
4.
CookAMHusseySM (1995) Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice. St. Louis, MO: Mosby, Inc.
5.
CorryMWhileA (2009) The needs of carers of people with multiple sclerosis: A literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences23: 569–588.
6.
DennisonLMoss-MorrisRChalderT (2009) A review of psychological correlates of adjustment in patients with multiple sclerosis. Clinical Psychology Review29: 141–153.
7.
DennisonLMoss-MorrisRSilberE, et al. (2010) Cognitive and behavioural correlates of different domains of psychological adjustment in early-stage multiple sclerosis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research69(4): 353–361.
8.
EdmondsPVivatBBurmanR, et al. (2007) ‘Fighting for everything’: Service experiences of people severely affected by multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis13: 660–667.
9.
GoodkinDE (1992) The natural history of multiple sclerosis. In: RiddickRAGoodkinDE (eds) Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis: Trial Design, Results and Future Perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 17–45.
10.
GottbergKEinarssonUYtterbergC, et al. (2008) Use of health services and satisfaction with care in people with multiple sclerosis in Stockholm County: A population-based study. Multiple Sclerosis14: 962–971.
11.
HoenigHTaylorDHJrSloanFA (2003) Does assistive technology substitute for personal assistance among the disabled elderly?American Journal of Public Health93: 330–337.
12.
JohnsonKLBamerAMYorkstonKM, et al. (2009) Use of cognitive aids and other assistive technology by individuals with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology4(1): 1–8.
13.
JohnstonPCurrieLMDrynanD, et al. (2014) Getting it ‘right’: How collaborative relationships between people with disabilities and professionals can lead to the acquisition of needed assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology9(5): 421–431.
14.
JonesLHFordDVJonesPA, et al. (2013) The physical and psychological impact of multiple sclerosis using the MSIS-29 via the web portal of the UK MS Register. PLoS ONE8(1): e55422.
15.
KiddPSParshallMB (2000) Getting the focus and the group: Enhancing analytic rigor in focus group research. Qualitative Health Research10(3): 293–308.
16.
LeventhalHBrissetteILeventhalEA (2003) The common-sense model of self-regulation of health and illness. In: CameronLDLeventhalH (eds) The Self-Regulation of Health and Illness Behaviour. London: Routledge, pp. 42–65.
17.
LeventhalHDiefenbachMLeventhalE (1992) Illness cognition: Using common sense to understand treatment adherence and effect cognitive interactions. Cognitive Therapy and Research16(2): 143–163.
18.
LeventhalHMeyerDNerenzD (1980) The common sense model of illness danger. In: RachmanS (ed.) Medical Psychology, vol. 2. New York: Pergamon, pp. 7–30.
19.
MawS (2013) The impact of the NICE guidelines on the experience of being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. British Journal of Occupational Therapy76(3): 143.
20.
MeyrickJ (2006) What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality. Journal of Health Psychology11(5): 799–808.
21.
MikulaPNagyovaIKrokavcovaM, et al. (2017) Self-esteem, social participation, and quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Health Psychology22: 984–992.
22.
MortensonWBDemersLFuhrerMJ, et al. (2012) How assistive technology use by individuals with disabilities impacts their caregivers: A systematic review of the research evidence. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation91(11): 984–998.
23.
Moss-MorrisR (2013) Adjusting to chronic illness: Time for a unified theory. British Journal of Health Psychology18: 681–686.
OkoroCAStrineTWBalluzLS, et al. (2010) Prevalence and correlates of depressive symptoms among United States adults with disabilities using assistive technology. Preventive Medicine50: 204–209.
27.
PakenhamKI (2005) Relations between coping and positive and negative outcomes in carers of persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings12: 25–38.
28.
PakenhamKIFlemingM (2011) Relations between acceptance of multiple sclerosis and positive and negative adjustments. Psychology and Health26(10): 1292–1309.
29.
PhillipsBZhaoH (1993) Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology5(1): 36–45.
30.
PrestonJHaslamSLamontL (2012) What do people with multiple sclerosis want from an occupational therapy service?British Journal of Occupational Therapy75(6): 264–270.
31.
RevensonTAGrivaKLuszczynskaA, et al. (2016) Caregiving in the Illness Context. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 5.
32.
RigbyPRyanSEJoosS, et al. (2005) Impact of electronic aids to daily living on the lives of persons with cervical spinal cord injuries. Assistive Technology17(2): 89–97.
33.
SchererMJutaiJFuhrerM, et al. (2007) A framework for modeling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology2: 1–8.
34.
SchouLHøstrupHLyngsøEE, et al. (2012) Validation of a new assessment tool for qualitative research articles. Journal of Advanced Nursing68(9): 2086–2094.
35.
SolariA (2014) Effective communication at the point of multiple sclerosis diagnosis. Multiple Sclerosis20(4): 397–402.
36.
SouzaAKelleherACooperR, et al. (2010) Multiple sclerosis and mobility-related assistive technology: Systematic review of literature. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development47(3): 213–223.
37.
SquiresLARushFHopkinsonA, et al. (2013) The physical and psychological impact of using a computer-based environmental control system: A case study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology8(5): 434–443.
38.
StuifbergenABeckerHBlozisS, et al. (2008) Conceptualization and development of the Acceptance of Chronic Health Conditions Scale. Issues in Mental Health Nursing29(2): 101–114.
39.
TelfordKKralikDKochT (2006) Acceptance and denial: Implications for people adapting to chronic illness: Literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing55(4): 457–464.
40.
VerzaRLopes CarvalhoMLBattagliaMA, et al. (2006) An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment.
Multiple Sclerosis12(1): 88–93.
41.
WesselsRDijcksBSoedeM, et al. (2003) Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature review. Technology and Disability15: 231–238.
42.
WilkinsonS (1998) Focus groups in health research: Exploring the meanings of health and illness. Journal of Health Psychology3(3): 329–348.
43.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2001) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: WHO.
