Only a few studies have investigated the effects of assistive devices (ADs) from the user’s perspective. This knowledge is important for clinical and policy decision-making.
OBJECTIVE:
The aim was to determine to what extent older people experience less difficulty in performing daily activities after having received uncomplicated ADs such as bath chairs and rollators.
METHODS:
The study had a pretest – post-test intervention design where the outcomes were evaluated using the Individually Prioritized Problem Assessment (IPPA) and analyzed with paired -tests. Effect sizes (ES) were interpreted according to Cohen’s . People aged 67 years with sufficient cognitive or hearing functioning necessary to participate in an interview were included.
RESULTS:
This study enrolled 52 home-dwelling persons aged 69–93 years. Baseline IPPA score was 17.29 4.27 points (mean standard deviation), follow-up score 9.29 4.47 points, indicating a significant reduction in the mean difficulty score of 8.64 points (95% confidence interval: 7.37–9.81 points) ( 0.001). The ES at the group level was 1.57 and varied from no to large effect.
CONCLUSIONS:
Receiving uncomplicated ADs significantly reduced the difficulties experienced by older people. However, the large variations in the ES highlight the importance of providing individually tailored training programs for mobility ADs, which should be considered in further outcome studies.
LawM. Participation in the occupations of everyday life. Am J Occup Ther. 2002; 56(6): 640-9. doi: 10.5014/ajot.56.6.640.
2.
GaleCRCooperCSayerAA. Prevalence of frailty and disability: findings from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Age Ageing. 2015 Jan 1; 44(1): 162-5.
3.
GabrielZbowlingA. Quality of life from the perspectives of older people. Ageing Soc. 2004; 24(5): 675-91. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X03001582.
4.
JolankiOH. Agency in talk about old age and health. J Aging Stud. 2009 Dec; 23(4): 215-26.
5.
MannWCHurrenDTomitaM. Assistive devices used by home-based elderly persons with arthritis. Am J Occup Ther. 1995; 49(8): 810-20. doi: 10.5014/ajot.49.8.810.
6.
Hedberg-KristenssonEIvanoffSDIwarssonS. Experiences among older persons using mobility devices. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007; 2(1): 15-22.
7.
Häggblom-KronlöfGSonnU. Use of assistive devices – a reality full of contradictions in elderly persons’ everyday life. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007; 2(6): 335-45. doi: 10.1080/17483100701701672.
8.
World Health Organization. WHO | World report on ageing and health 2015. World Heal Organ. 2015; 6.
9.
MannWCLlanesCJustissMDTomitaM. Frail Older Adults’ Self-Report of Their Most Important Assistive Device. 2016 Jun 24; 24(1): 4-12. doi: 10.1177/153944920402400102.
10.
Hagstova Føroya. 2020. Available from: https://hagstova.fo/fo/folk/folkatal/folkatal.
11.
Nærverki. Starvsfólkatørvur til og vi (The need for nursing staff untill 2015). 2015. Available from: https://hhff.fo/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Starvsfolkatorvur_til_og_vid_2015.pdf.
12.
DurhuusGThorsteinssonAEllingsgaardEJoensenHHolmÁNiklasdóttirS, et al. Tilmæli um eldrapolitikk (Recommendations on elderly policy). Almannamálarái. Available from: https://lms.cdn.fo/media/1927/12-00207-55-eldrapolitikkur.pdf?s=KELx0NzRSTVX69aap0Shgb9ubyo.
13.
RóinÁ. The multifaceted notion of home: Exploring the meaning of home among elderly people living in the Faroe Islands. J Rural Stud. 2015 Jun 1; 39: 22-31.
14.
JacobsenB. Í trija aldri ráa vit yvir degnum – ein kanning av livikorum hjá fólkapensionistum. 2010. Available from: http://tilfar.lms.fo/logir/alit/2010.09Kanninglivikorpensjonista.pdf.
15.
LudvigsdóttirBJacobsenFBjarkhamarDPetersenHChristiansenELamhaugeJ. Tilmæli um samskipaa endurvenjing. Recommendations on Coordinated Rehabilitation. 2016.
16.
Kommunufelagi. Føroya Kommunufelag. Bú- og heimatænastur. 2017. Available from: http://www.kf.fo/kommunurnar/samstoerv/bu-og-heimataenastur.
17.
Løgmansskrivstovan. Kunnger um stuul til hjálparrá [Internet]. Kunnger nr. 18 frá 22. mars 2010 um stuul til hjálparrá, sum broytt vi kunnger nr. 128 frá 14. desember 2016. 2016. Available from: https://logir.fo/Kunngerd/18-fra-22-03-2010-um-studul-til-hjalparrad.
18.
MikkelsenS. Personal Comment. 2017.
19.
Almannaverki\dhAV.,Deildin fyri hjálpartól, Starvsfólk. 2021. Available from: http://av.fo/default.asp?menu=680.
20.
HovgaardG. Master learning: a way to manage tertiary education in small island jurisdictions. High Educ. 2016 Nov 1; 72(5): 637-49. 3
21.
SmithEMGowranRJMannanHDonnellyBAlvarezLBellD, et al. Enabling appropriate personnel skill-mix for progressive realization of equitable access to assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018 Jul 4; 13(5): 445-53.
22.
Hylland EriksenT. Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology. 3rd ed. London: Pluto Press; 2010.
23.
HayfieldEA. Ethics in Small Island Research: Reflexively navigating multiple relations. Shima. 2022 Oct 14; 16(2): 233-49. Available from: www.shimajournal.org.
24.
AndrichRMathiassenNEHoogerwerfEJGelderblomGJ. Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: An AAATE/EASTIN position paper. Technol Disabil. 2013; 25(3): 127-46.
25.
CookAMPolgarJM. Activity, Human, and Context: The Human doing an Activity in Context. In: Assistive Technology: Principles and Practice. 4th Edition. Elsevier; 2015. pp. 40-67.
26.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Culture. Convention on the Rights on Persons with Disabilities. 2020. Available from: https://www.ummr.fo/fo/arbeidsoki/uttanrikisvidurskifti/foroyar-og-mannaraettindi/st-mannaraettindi/sattmalin-um-raettindini-hja-personum-id-bera-brek-2006/.
27.
United Nations (UN). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html.
28.
WesselsRDe WitteLAndrichRFerrarioMPerssonJObergB, et al. IPPA, a user-centred approach to assess effectiveness of assistive technology provision. Technol Disabil. 2001; 13(2): 105-15.
29.
GramstadAStorliSLHamranT. Older individuals’ experiences during the assistive technology device service delivery process. Scand J Occup Ther. 2014; 21(4): 305-12.
30.
LöfqvistCNygrenCBrandtÅIwarssonS. Very old Swedish women’s experiences of mobility devices in everyday occupation: a longitudinal case study. Scand J Occup Ther. 2009; 16(3): 181-92. doi: 10.1080/11038120802613108.
31.
AnttilaHSamuelssonKSalminenALBrandtS. Quality of evidence of assistive technology interventions for people with disability: An overview of systematic reviews. Vol. 24, Technology and Disability. 2012. pp. 9-48.
32.
Larsson RanadaÅLidströmH. Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process – A systematic review. Vol. 31, Assistive Technology. Taylor and Francis Inc.; 2019. pp. 82-97.
33.
BrandtÅHansenEMChristensenJR. The effects of assistive technology service delivery processes and factors associated with positive outcomes – a systematic review. Vol. 15, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. 2020. pp. 590-603.
34.
JedelooSDe WitteLSchrijversG. A user-centred approach to assess the effectiveness of outdoor mobility devices and services. Int J Rehabil Res. 2002; 25(2).
35.
PetterssonITörnquistKAhlströmG. The effect of an outdoor powered wheelchair on activity and participation in users with stroke. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006; 1(4): 235-43. doi: 10.1080/17483100600757841.
36.
PetterssonIHagbergLFredrikssonCHermanssonLN. The effect of powered scooters on activity, participation and quality of life in elderly users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016 Oct 2; 11(7): 558-63.
37.
De JongeDStevensWJutaiJW. Capturing the True Value of Assistive Technologies to Consumers in Routine Outcome Measurement. Technol. 2016 Oct 14; 4(4): 35. doi: 10.3390/.
38.
DesideriLBizzarriMBitelliCRoentgenUGelderblomGJDe WitteL. Implementing a routine outcome assessment procedure to evaluate the quality of assistive technology service delivery for children with physical or multiple disabilities: Perceived effectiveness, social cost, and user satisfaction. Assist Technol. 2016 Jan 2; 28(1): 30-40.
39.
WesselsRPerssonJLorentsen ØAndrichRFerrarioMOortwijnW, et al. IPPA: Individually Prioritised Problem Assessment. Technol Disabil. 2002; 14(3).
40.
TingsagerM-BBrandtÅ. Tidlig Rehabiliterende Hjælpemiddelformidling Et pilotprojekt i Fredericia Kommune. Fredericia; 2013. Available from: https://www.fredericia.dk/system/files/cp-documents/d5f9da0b-efa8-e611-80cc-005056b95f67.pdf.
41.
Functioning and Disability Reference Group. The ICF: An Overview. World Heal Organ. 2010.
42.
CohenJ. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behaviorual Science. New York: Academic Press; 1997.
43.
CaligariMGodiMGuglielmettiSFranchignoniFNardoneA. Eye tracking communication devices in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Impact on disability and quality of life. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Front Degener. 2013; 14(7-8).
44.
FedericiSBorsciS. Providing assistive technology in Italy: The perceived delivery process quality as affecting abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016 Jan 2; 11(1): 22-31.
45.
GreenSSixsmithJIvanoffSDSixsmithA. Influence of occupation and home environment on the wellbeing of European elders. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2005; 12(11).
46.
PresslerKAFerraroKF. Assistive device use as a dynamic acquisition process in later life. Gerontologist. 2010 Jun; 50(3): 371-81.
47.
GitlinLNMillerKSBoyceA. Bathroom modifications for frail elderly renters: Outcomes of a community-based program. Technol Disabil. 1999; 10(3): 141-9. doi: 10.3233/TAD-1999-10302.
48.
StewartRBMooreMTMayFEMarksRGHaleWE. Nocturia: a risk factor for falls in the elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992; 40(12): 1217-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1992.tb03645.x.
49.
SkymneCDahlin-IvanoffSClaessonLEklundK. Getting used to assistive devices: Ambivalent experiences by frail elderly persons. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012 Mar; 19(2): 194-203.
50.
McMillenAMSöderbergS. Disabled person’s experience of dependence on assistive devices. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2002; 9.
51.
CraigPDieppePMacintyreSMitchieSNazarethIPetticrewM. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008; 337.
52.
SkymneCDahlin-IvanoffSClaessonLEklundK. Getting used to assistive devices: ambivalent experiences by frail elderly persons. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012 Mar; 19(2): 194-203. doi: 10.3109/11038128.2011.569757.
53.
Hedberg-KristenssonEIvanoffSDIwarssonS. Experiences among older persons using mobility devices. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007; 2(1): 15-22. doi: 10.1080/17483100600875197.
54.
ColucciMTofaniMTrioschiDGuarinoDBerardiAGaleotoG. Reliability and validity of the Italian version of Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST-IT 2.0) with users of mobility assistive device. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021; 16(3): 251-4.
55.
LarsenSMMortensenRFKristensenHKHounsgaardL. Older adults’ perspectives on the process of becoming users of assistive technology: a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019 Feb 17; 14(2): 182-93. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2018.1463403.
56.
ThuesenJ. Gammel og svækket i nye omgivelser: narrativt arbejde i brugerorienterede rehabiliteringsforløb. Roskilde Universitet; 2013. Available from: https://forskning.ruc.dk/da/publications/gammel-og-svækket-i-nye-omgivelser-narrativt-arbejde-i-brugerorie.
57.
Häggblom-KronlöfGSonnU. Use of assistive devices–a reality full of contradictions in elderly persons’ everyday life. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007; 2(6): 335-45. doi: 10.1080/17483100701701672.
58.
World medical association declaration of helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Vol. 79, Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2001.
