Perceived difficulty in use of everyday technology in persons with acquired brain injury of different severity: a comparison with controls.

OBJECTIVE To compare the perceived difficulty in use of everyday technology in persons with acquired brain injury with different levels of severity of disability with that of controls. METHODS This comparison study recruited 2 samples of persons with acquired brain injury and controls, comprising a total of 161 participants, age range 18-64 years. The long and short versions of the Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire and the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale were used to evaluate participants. RESULTS Persons with acquired brain injury demonstrated lower mean levels of perceived ability in use of everyday technology than controls (F = 21.84, degrees of freedom = 1, p < 0.001). Further analysis showed a statistically significant mean difference in perceived difficulty in use of everyday technology between persons with severe disability and good recovery, between persons with severe disability and controls, and between persons with moderate disability and controls. No significant mean difference was found between persons with severe disability and moderate disability, between persons with moderate disability and good recovery, and between persons with good recovery and controls. CONCLUSION Perceived difficulty in using everyday technology is significantly increased among persons with acquired brain injury with severe to moderate disability compared with controls. Rehabilitation services should consider the use of everyday technology in order to increase participation in everyday activities after acquired brain injury.

[1]  B. Bernspång,et al.  Participation in everyday occupations in a late phase of recovery after brain injury , 2007, Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy.

[2]  B. Wright.  Reasonable mean-square fit values , 1994 .

[3]  Stacey E. Ackerman,et al.  The Use of Computer Technology with Older Adult Clients: A Pilot Study of Occupational Therapists , 2001 .

[4]  J. Giacino,et al.  Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: recommendations for clinical practice. , 2000, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[5]  M. Lange,et al.  TECHNOLOGY AND OCCUPATION: CONTEMPORARY VIEWPOINTS The Future of Electronic Aids to Daily Living , 2015 .

[6]  G. Teasdale,et al.  Emotional and cognitive consequences of head injury in relation to the Glasgow outcome scale , 2000, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[7]  J. Whyte,et al.  Awareness of behavioral, cognitive, and physical deficits in acute traumatic brain injury. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[8]  L Nygård,et al.  Ability to manage everyday technology: a comparison of persons with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and older adults without cognitive impairment , 2010, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[9]  L. Nygård,et al.  Technology and everyday functioning in people with intellectual disabilities: a Rasch analysis of the Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ). , 2011, Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR.

[10]  J. Borg,et al.  Relationship between occupational gaps in everyday life, depressive mood and life satisfaction after acquired brain injury. , 2009, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[11]  L. Nygård,et al.  The use of everyday technology by people with dementia living alone: Mapping out the difficulties , 2007, Aging & mental health.

[12]  Maria Larsson Lund,et al.  The challenges of everyday technology in the workplace for persons with acquired brain injury , 2013, Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy.

[13]  B. Winblad,et al.  Perceived difficulty in everyday technology use among older adults with or without cognitive deficits , 2009, Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy.

[14]  J. Powell,et al.  Impact of traumatic brain injury on participation in leisure activities. , 2010, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[15]  B. Pentland,et al.  Training in brain injury rehabilitation , 2003, Disability and Rehabilitation.

[16]  Maria Larsson Lund,et al.  Difficulties in using everyday technology after acquired brain injury: a qualitative analysis , 2010 .

[17]  L. Nygård,et al.  Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire: Psychometric Evaluation of a New Assessment of Competence in Technology Use , 2009 .

[18]  J. Borg,et al.  Occupational gaps in everyday life 1-4 years after acquired brain injury. , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[19]  Anders Kottorp,et al.  Detection of activity limitations in older adults with MCI or Alzheimer's disease through evaluation of perceived difficulty in use of everyday technology: A replication study , 2012, Aging & mental health.

[20]  J. Naalt.  Prediction of Outcome in Mild to Moderate Head Injury: A Review , 2001 .

[21]  C. Fox,et al.  Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences , 2001 .

[22]  Alexander C Geurts,et al.  Three-year follow-up results of a residential community reintegration program for patients with chronic acquired brain injury. , 2012, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[23]  Maria Larsson Lund,et al.  Ability to manage everyday technology after acquired brain injury , 2013, Brain injury.

[24]  A. Fugl-Meyer,et al.  Couples’ happiness and its relationship to functioning in everyday life after brain injury , 2005, Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy.

[25]  G. Teasdale,et al.  Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use. , 1998, Journal of neurotrauma.

[26]  A. Geurts,et al.  A prospective study to evaluate a residential community reintegration program for patients with chronic acquired brain injury. , 2011, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[27]  J. Lexell,et al.  Using everyday technology to compensate for difficulties in task performance in daily life: experiences in persons with acquired brain injury and their significant others , 2011, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[28]  Mark Speechley,et al.  A systematic review of the rehabilitation of moderate to severe acquired brain injuries , 2007, Brain injury.

[29]  J. Lexell,et al.  Response actions to difficulties in using everyday technology after acquired brain injury , 2012, Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy.

[30]  Anders Kottorp,et al.  Development of a short-form assessment for detection of subtle activity limitations: can use of everyday technology distinguish between MCI and Alzheimer’s disease? , 2011, Expert review of neurotherapeutics.

[31]  J. van der Naalt.  Prediction of outcome in mild to moderate head injury: a review. , 2001, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[32]  Maria Larsson Lund,et al.  The complexity of participation in daily life: a qualitative study of the experiences of persons with acquired brain injury. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[33]  J. Olver,et al.  The association between apolipoprotein E and traumatic brain injury severity and functional outcome in a rehabilitation sample. , 2011, Journal of neurotrauma.

[34]  M. Weng,et al.  Multi-disciplinary rehabilitation for acquired brain injury in adults of working age , 2016 .

[35]  Maria Larsson Lund,et al.  Perceived difficulties using everyday technology after acquired brain injury: Influence on activity and participation , 2010, Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy.

[36]  M. Patton.  Qualitative research & evaluation methods , 2002 .

[37]  G. Fisher.  Occupational therapy intervention process model : a model for planning and implementing top-down, client-centered, and occupation-based interventions , 2009 .

[38]  L. Nygård,et al.  Psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of the ability to manage technology in everyday life , 2011, Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy.

[39]  J. Charlton,et al.  Self-awareness following traumatic brain injury and implications for rehabilitation , 2002, Brain injury.