Providing assistive technology in Italy: the perceived delivery process quality as affecting abandonment

Abstract Purpose: The study brings together three aspects rarely observed at once in assistive technology (AT) surveys: (i) the assessment of user interaction/satisfaction with AT and service delivery, (ii) the motivational analysis of AT abandonment, and (iii) the management/design evaluation of AT delivery services. Methods: 15 health professionals and 4 AT experts were involved in modelling and assessing four AT Local Health Delivery Service (Centres) in Italy through a SWOT analysis and a Cognitive Walkthrough. In addition 558 users of the same Centres were interviewed in a telephone survey to rate their satisfaction and AT use. Results: The overall AT abandonment was equal to 19.09%. Different Centres' management strategies resulted in different percentages of AT disuse, with a range from 12.61% to 24.26%. A significant difference between the declared abandonment and the Centres' management strategies (p = 0.012) was identified. A strong effect on abandonment was also found due to professionals' procedures (p = 0.005) and follow-up systems (p = 0.002). Conclusions: The user experience of an AT is affected not only by the quality of the interaction with the AT, but also by the perceived quality of the Centres in support and follow-up. Implications for Rehabilitation AT abandonment surveys provide useful information for modelling AT assessment and delivery process. SWOT and Cognitive Walkthrough analyses have shown suitable methods for exploring limits and advantages in AT service delivery systems. The study confirms the relevance of person centredness for a successful AT assessment and delivery process.

[1]  Stefano Federici,et al.  The Bootstrap Discovery Behaviour Model: Why Five Users are Not Enough to Test User Experience , 2012 .

[2]  Eshaa M. Alkhalifa,et al.  Cognitively Informed Intelligent Interfaces: Systems Design and Development , 2012 .

[3]  C. Wolfson,et al.  Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis , 2002, Disability and rehabilitation.

[4]  Marcia J Scherer,et al.  From people-centered to person-centered services, and back again , 2014, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[5]  P. Good,et al.  Permutation Tests: A Practical Guide to Resampling Methods for Testing Hypotheses , 1995 .

[6]  Jacobijn Gussekloo,et al.  Assistive devices and community-based services among 85-year-old community-dwelling elderly in The Netherlands: Ownership, use,and need for intervention , 2006, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[7]  Louise Demers,et al.  The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress , 2002 .

[8]  Bryan R. Cole,et al.  Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion , 2005, BMC medical research methodology.

[9]  Ir. Theo Bougie.  ISO 9999 Assistive Products for Persons with Disability: Classification and Terminology , 2008 .

[10]  T. Shakespeare,et al.  Editorial , 2011, Disability and rehabilitation.

[11]  Ariel Linden,et al.  Evaluating Disease Management Program Effectiveness , 2005 .

[12]  G. Gelderblom,et al.  Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview , 2004 .

[13]  D. Müller,et al.  Assistive Technology: Matching Device and Consumer for Successful Rehabilitation , 2003 .

[14]  G. Gelderblom,et al.  Non-use of assistive technology in The Netherlands: A non-issue? , 2006, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[15]  M. Battaglia,et al.  An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment , 2006, Multiple sclerosis.

[16]  M. Cullen.  United States. Congress , 2016 .

[17]  Manoj Sharma,et al.  EVALUATION IN COMMUNITY BASED REHABILITATION PROGRAMMES: A STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS ANALYSIS , 2007 .

[18]  Fabrice Gzil,et al.  Person-centredness: Conceptual and historical perspectives , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation.

[19]  John W. Michael.  Living in a State of Stuck: How Technologies Affect the Lives of People with Disabilities , 1994 .

[20]  S. Federici,et al.  The Assistive Technology Assessment Model and Basic Definitions , 2012 .

[21]  B Phillips,et al.  Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. , 1993, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[22]  Mansha Mirza,et al.  The Assessment of the Environments of AT Use: Accessibility, Sustainability, and Universal Design , 2012 .

[23]  Cathleen Wharton,et al.  Testing a walkthrough methodology for theory-based design of walk-up-and-use interfaces , 1990, CHI '90.

[24]  Christopher J L Murray,et al.  Health systems performance assessment: debates, methods and empiricism. , 2003 .

[25]  Albert M. Cook,et al.  Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice , 1995 .

[26]  Renzo Andrich.  Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: A position paper , 2013 .

[27]  Marie Grandisson,et al.  A systematic review on how to conduct evaluations in community-based rehabilitation , 2013, Disability and rehabilitation.

[28]  Chantal Camden,et al.  SWOT analysis of a pediatric rehabilitation programme: A participatory evaluation fostering quality improvement , 2009, Disability and rehabilitation.

[29]  Gert Jan Gelderblom,et al.  Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: An AAATE/EASTIN position paper , 2013 .

[30]  J G Kohn,et al.  Measuring quality and performance of assistive technology: results of a prospective monitoring program. , 1994, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[31]  Jay K. Martin,et al.  The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology , 2011, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[32]  R. Stott,et al.  The World Bank , 2008, Annals of tropical medicine and parasitology.

[33]  Hugh Stewart,et al.  Factors influencing the decision to abandon manual wheelchairs for three individuals with a spinal cord injury , 2002, Disability and rehabilitation.

[34]  A. Vanbiervliet,et al.  Predictors of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial factors , 2005, Disability and rehabilitation.

[35]  M. Scherer,et al.  Measuring the relationship of assistive technology use, functional status over time, and consumer-therapist perceptions of ATs. , 1996, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[36]  R. English.  The United States Congress , 2003 .

[37]  Per-Olof Östergren,et al.  User involvement in service delivery predicts outcomes of assistive technology use: A cross-sectional study in Bangladesh , 2012, BMC Health Services Research.

[38]  Fabrizio Corradi,et al.  Measuring the Assistive Technology MATCH , 2012 .

[39]  Stefano Federici,et al.  Assistive technology assessment handbook , 2017 .

[40]  R. Gunnarsson,et al.  Fewer accidents and better maintenance with active wheelchair check-ups: a randomized controlled clinical trial , 2004, Clinical rehabilitation.