Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a severe neurologic disease. Affected patients suffer from a gradual loss of functional capacities. The use of assistive technology and devices (ATD) can help them sustain their autonomy and ability of social participation.
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this study was to analyze the experiences with ATD and to identify issues related to the use of ATD among ALS patients and their caregivers.
METHODS:
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five ALS patients, five caregiving relatives, and five professional caregivers within a group discussion. Questions related to the living and support situation, expectations to and experiences with ATD, related problems and usage barriers.
RESULTS:
Three main areas that affected the experiences with ATD of ALS patients and their caregivers could be identified: usability of ATD, stigmatization due to ATD and the ATD supply process. Inadequate ATD and ATD supply negatively affected the patients’ quality of life and constituted a burden for caregivers.
CONCLUSIONS:
The presented study results give an important overview about the experiences of ALS patients and their caregivers with ATD. Strategies to approach identified issues could involve the implementation of a case management, patient empowerment, and an adaptation of ATD to meet user requirements.
ChiòALogroscinoGTraynorB, et al. Global Epidemiology of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: a Systematic Review of the Published Literature. Neuroepidemiology.2013; 41: 118-130.
2.
GalvinMGaffneyRCorrB, et al. From first symptoms to diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: perspectives of an Irish informal caregiver cohort-a thematic analysis. BMJ Open.2017; 7: e014985.
3.
A Paradigm Shift in ALS/MND Clinic Care, http//alsworldwide.org/care-and-support/article/a-paradigm-shift-in-als-mnd-clinic-care: (accessed 26 November 2018).
4.
PhukanJElaminMBedeP, et al. The syndrome of cognitive impairment in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a population-based study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry.2011; jnnp-2011-300188.
5.
WHO Assistive devices and technologies, http//www.who.int/disabilities/technology/en/: (accessed 20 June 2018).
6.
BauschMEMittlerJEHasselbringTS, et al. The Assistive Technology Act of 2004: What Does It Say and What Does It Mean? Phys Disabil Educ Relat Serv.2005; 23: 59-67.
7.
FunkeASpittelSGrehlT, et al. Provision of assistive technology devices among people with ALS in Germany: a platform-case management approach. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Front Degener.2018; 19: 342-350.
8.
AlbrechtGLDevliegerPJ. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med.1999; 48: 977-988.
9.
BallLJBeukelmanDRPatteeGL. Acceptance of Augmentative and Alternative Communication Technology by Persons with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. Augment Altern Commun.2004; 20: 113-122.
10.
HesseSBestmannALingnauM, et al. Hilfsmittelversorgung in der Rehabilitation [Supply with assistive technologies and devices in rehabilitation]. Berlin: Reha-Forschungsverbund Berlin-Brandenburg-Sachsen (BBS).
CalvoAChiòACastellinaE, et al. Eye Tracking Impact on Quality-of-Life of ALS Patients. In: MiesenbergerKKlausJZaglerW, et al. (eds) Computers Helping People with Special Needs. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 70-77.
13.
MayringP. Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken [Introduction in qualitative social research: an instruction for qualitative thinking]. 6. überarbeitete Auflage. Weinheim Basel: Beltz, 2016.
14.
MortensonWBDemersLFuhrerMJ, et al. How Assistive Technology Use by Individuals with Disabilities Impacts Their Caregivers: A Systematic Review of the Research Evidence. Am J Phys Med Rehabil.2012; 91: 984-998.
15.
Madara MarasingheK. Assistive technologies in reducing caregiver burden among informal caregivers of older adults: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol.2016; 11: 353-360.
16.
Ben MortensonWDemersLFuhrerMJ, et al. Effects of a caregiver-inclusive assistive technology intervention: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr; 18. Epub ahead of print December 2018. DOI: 10.1186/s12877-018-0783-6.
17.
FelgoiseSHZaccheoVDuffJ, et al. Verbal communication impacts quality of life in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Front Degener.2016; 17: 179-183.
18.
OECD. Sizing Up the Challenge Ahead: Future Demographic Trends and Long-term Care Costs. In: Help Wanted? OECD, pp. 61-84.
19.
TochEWangYCranorLF. Personalization and privacy: a survey of privacy risks and remedies in personalization-based systems. User Model User-Adapt Interact.2012; 22: 203-220.
20.
ZipkinPH. The Limits of Mass Customization. MIT Sloan Manag Rev.2001; 42: 81-87.
21.
PeekSTMWoutersEJMvan HoofJ, et al. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: A systematic review. Int J Med Inf.2014; 83: 235-248.
22.
FrennertSÖstlundB. Review: Seven Matters of Concern of Social Robots and Older People. Int J Soc Robot.2014; 6: 299-310.
23.
ZapfSASchererMJBaxterMF, et al. Validating a measure to assess factors that affect assistive technology use by students with disabilities in elementary and secondary education. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, https//www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/17483107.2015.1104559. (2015, accessed 19 February 2019).
24.
PeterMKatharinaHEvelynS, et al. Assistive Technologies along Supply Chains in Health Care and in the Social Services Sector. Stud Health Technol Inform.2015; 111-116.
25.
MortensonWBPysklywecAFuhrerMJ, et al. Caregivers’ experiences with the selection and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol.2018; 13: 562-567.
26.
KirbyRLMifflenNJThibaultDL, et al. The manual wheelchair-handling skills of caregivers and the effect of training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2004; 85: 2011-2019.
27.
GitlinLNWinterLDennisMP. Assistive devices caregivers use and find helpful to manage problem behaviors of dementia. Gerontechnology; 9. Epub ahead of print 1 July 2010. DOI: 10.4017/gt.2010.09.03.006.00.
28.
ParettePSchererM. Assistive Technology Use and Stigma. Educ Train Dev Disabil.2004; 39: 217-226.
29.
ShinoharaKWobbrockJO. In the shadow of misperception: assistive technology use and social interactions. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems – CHI ’11. Vancouver, BC, Canada: ACM Press, p. 705.
30.
YusifSSoarJHafeez-BaigA. Older people, assistive technologies, and the barriers to adoption: A systematic review. Int J Med Inf.2016; 94: 112-116.
31.
BichardJ-AColemanRLangdonP. Does My Stigma Look Big in This? Considering Acceptability and Desirability in the Inclusive Design of Technology Products. In: StephanidisC (ed) Universal Acess in Human Computer Interaction. Coping with Diversity. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 622-631.
32.
FunkeAGrehlTGroßkreutzJ, et al. Hilfsmittelversorgung bei der amyotrophen Lateralsklerose: Analyse aus 3 Jahren Fallmanagement in einem internetunterstützten Versorgungsnetzwerk [Supply with assistive technologies and devices in persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: analysis of 3 years case management in a internet-supported supply management platform]. Nervenarzt.2015; 86: 1007-1017.
33.
RohwerderfB. Assistive technologies in developing countries. Helpdesk Report K4D, Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.
34.
BakkerMCreemersHSchipperK, et al. Need and value of case management in multidisciplinary ALS care: A qualitative study on the perspectives of patients, spousal caregivers and professionals. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Front Degener.2015; 16: 180-186.
