Documentation of and satisfaction with the service delivery process of electric powered scooters among adult users in different national contexts

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate how different service delivery systems for assistive devices were associated with the service delivery process (SDP) and user satisfaction in two national contexts when electric powered scooters were provided. Method: The study had a follow-up design based on a consecutive inclusion of 50 Danish and 86 Norwegian adults as they were about to be provided a scooter. A study-specific structured questionnaire for documentation of the SDP was administered. The Satisfaction with Assistive Technology Services was used for documenting user satisfaction with the SDP. Besides descriptive statistics, regression analysis was used to identify contributors of variance and predictors of user satisfaction. Results: The various steps of the SDP were carried out to a various degree. Significantly more total time was spent in the SDP in the Danish sample (p < 0.001). About 80% of the informants were satisfied/very satisfied with different aspects of the SDP. Time spent in the different steps was not associated with user satisfaction with the SDP. Conclusion: This study supports the assumption that structure of the service impacts on the SDP, but not that the process impacts on outcomes in terms of user satisfaction with the SDP. It may, however, be questioned whether this actually is an outcome. Implications for Rehabilitation The structure of assistive technology services impacts on the service delivery process Complex regulations for assistive technology grants increases the time use for assessment and administration User satisfaction with the service delivery process may not be an outcome dimension in the sense that outcomes are effects on the lives of users and their environments, but rather a quality indicator and therefore an evidence for more or less successful service delivery processes

[1]  Frank DeRuyter,et al.  Treatment Theory, Intervention Specification, and Treatment Fidelity in Assistive Technology Outcomes Research , 2010, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[2]  S Brochard,et al.  [Satisfaction with technological equipment in individuals with tetraplegia following spinal cord injury]. , 2007, Annales de readaptation et de medecine physique : revue scientifique de la Societe francaise de reeducation fonctionnelle de readaptation et de medecine physique.

[3]  Rory A Cooper,et al.  Satisfaction related to wheelchair use in older adults in both nursing homes and community dwelling , 2009, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

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

[5]  A. Donabedian An Introduction to Quality Assurance in Health Care , 2002 .

[6]  Rhoda Weiss-Lambrou,et al.  An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST) , 1999 .

[7]  Å. Brandt,et al.  Older people's use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[8]  Helena Leino-Kilpi,et al.  Patient satisfaction as an outcome of individualised nursing care. , 2012, Scandinavian journal of caring sciences.

[9]  Shirley G Fitzgerald,et al.  Issues in maintenance and repairs of wheelchairs: A pilot study. , 2005, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[10]  Martin Mackey,et al.  Patient Satisfaction With Musculoskeletal Physical Therapy Care: A Systematic Review , 2011, Physical Therapy.

[11]  Susanne Iwarsson,et al.  Mobility-related participation and user satisfaction: Construct validity in the context of powered wheelchair use , 2010, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[12]  C. Granger,et al.  Functional Assessment and Outcome Measures for the Rehabilitation Health Professional , 2005 .

[13]  Dittmar Ss A functional approach to measurement of rehabilitation outcomes , 1997 .

[14]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[15]  Marcel W M Post,et al.  KWAZO, a new instrument to assess the quality of service delivery in assistive technology provision , 2006, Disability and rehabilitation.

[16]  K. Samuelsson,et al.  User Satisfaction with Mobility Assistive Devices , 2004 .

[17]  J. Jutai,et al.  A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs) , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[18]  L. D. de Witte,et al.  A user-centred approach to assess the effectiveness of outdoor mobility devices and services , 2002, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[19]  A. Donabedian,et al.  The quality of care. How can it be assessed? , 1988, JAMA.

[20]  S. Brochard,et al.  Enquête de satisfaction sur l'équipement technologique des personnes tétraplégiques par blessure medullaire , 2007 .

[21]  Ewa Wressle,et al.  User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: An important element in the rehabilitation process , 2008, Disability and rehabilitation.

[22]  Susan L Garber,et al.  Wheelchair utilization and satisfaction following cerebral vascular accident. , 2002, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[23]  S. Jedeloo,et al.  Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility , 2002, Disability and rehabilitation.

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

[25]  M. Sanjak,et al.  Power wheelchair prescription, utilization, satisfaction, and cost for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: preliminary data for evidence-based guidelines. , 2010, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[26]  Diana Sale An introduction to quality assurance , 1990 .

[27]  Åse Brandt Outcomes of Rollator and Powered Wheelchair Interventions - User Satisfaction and Participation , 2005 .

[28]  R. Wessels,et al.  Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices , 2003, Disability and rehabilitation.

[29]  R. B.,et al.  The United Nations , 1947, Nature.

[30]  A. Frank,et al.  Older adults' use of, and satisfaction with, electric powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs. , 2007, Age and ageing.

[31]  A. Frank,et al.  Young people's experiences using electric powered indoor – outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOCs): Potential for enhancing users' development? , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation.

[32]  D. Sackett,et al.  Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't , 1996, BMJ.

[33]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Practical statistics for medical research , 1990 .

[34]  Jean Dansereau,et al.  Powered Tilt/Recline Systems: Why and How Are They Used? , 2003, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[35]  R Brian Haynes,et al.  Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. 1996. , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[36]  Helen Hoenig,et al.  Conceptual Overview of Frameworks for Measuring Quality in Rehabilitation , 2010, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[37]  J. Jutai,et al.  Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. , 2005, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.