The abandonment of assistive technology in Italy: a survey of users of the national health service.

Background: this study was an extension of research which began in the Umbria region in 2009. Aim: to investigate the extent to which assistive technology (AT) has been abandoned by users of the Italian National Health Service (ULHS) and the reasons for this. Design: observational study. Setting: users who received a hearing device (HD) or mobility device (MD) by ULHS between 2010 and 2013. Population: 749 out of 3,791 ULHS users contacted via telephone completed the interview: 330 (44.06%) had a HD and 419 (55.94%) a MD. Methods: Data were collected using a specially developed telephone interview questionnaire including the Italian version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with AT (QUEST 2.0) and Assistive Technology Use Follow-up Survey (ATUFS). Results: 134 users (17.9%) were no longer using their assigned AT device within seven months of issue and 40% of this group reported that they had never used the device. Duration of use (how long the AT device was used before abandonment) and satisfaction with service delivery did not predict AT abandonment. People who received a HD where more likely to abandon their device (22.4%) than those who received a MD (14.4%). Conclusion: abandonment may be due to assignment of inappropriate devices or failure to meet user needs and expectations. These findings are consistent with previous data collected by Federici and Borsci in 2009. Utility of AT in use, reasons of abandonment, and importance of device and service satisfaction for the use or nonuse of an AT are presented and discussed. Clinical Rehabilitation Impact: AT abandonment surveys provide useful information for modelling AT assessment and delivery process. The study confirms the relevance of person centredness approach for a successful AT assessment and delivery

[1]  A. Batavia,et al.  Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. , 1990, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[2]  Christine Marie Geiger,et al.  The Utilization of Assistive Devices by Patients Discharged from an Acute Rehabilitation Setting , 1990 .

[3]  Walter Didimo,et al.  A Model of Web-Based Follow-Up to Reduce Assistive Technology Abandonment , 2014, HCI.

[4]  Stephen Ryan,et al.  Development of the new Family Impact of Assistive Technology Scale , 2006, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

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

[6]  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.

[7]  Stefano Federici,et al.  A Person-Centered Assistive Technology Service Delivery Model: a framework for device selection and assignment , 2014 .

[8]  Marcia J. Scherer,et al.  The matching person and technology model. , 2004 .

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

[10]  William C. Mann,et al.  An Analysis of Problems with Canes Encountered by Elderly Persons , 1995 .

[11]  Jenny Strong,et al.  Factors that predict the post-discharge use of recommended assistive technology (AT) , 2006, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[12]  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.

[13]  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.

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

[15]  M J Scherer,et al.  Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. , 1996, Disability and rehabilitation.

[16]  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.

[17]  Stefano Federici,et al.  Providing assistive technology in Italy: the perceived delivery process quality as affecting abandonment , 2016, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

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

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

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

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

[22]  J. Rogers,et al.  Assistive technology device use in patients with rheumatic disease: a literature review. , 1992, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[23]  Renzo Andrich,et al.  IPPA: Individually Prioritised Problem Assessment , 2002 .

[24]  J. Rogers,et al.  The Use and Effectiveness of Assistive Devices Possessed by Patients Seen in Home Care , 1987 .

[25]  J. Jutai,et al.  Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) , 2002 .

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

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

[28]  Marti L. Riemer-Reiss,et al.  Factors Associated with Assistive Technology Discontinuance among Individuals with Disabilities , 2000 .

[29]  Marti L. Riemer-Reiss,et al.  Assistive Technology Use and Abandonment among College Students with Disabilities, 3(23) , 1999 .

[30]  R. Levine,et al.  Adaptive device use by older adults with mixed disabilities. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

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

[32]  Marcia J. Scherer,et al.  Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. , 2002 .

[33]  Rhoda Weiss-Lambrou.  Satisfaction and comfort. , 2002 .

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

[35]  Marion Gray,et al.  Baby boomers' use and perception of recommended assistive technology: A systematic review , 2009, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[36]  C. Hocking.  Function or feelings: factors in abandonment of assistive devices ∗ , 1999 .

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