Use of assistive technology in cognitive rehabilitation: Exploratory studies of the opinions and expectations of healthcare professionals and potential users

Objective: To provide recommendations for the successful implementation of Assistive Technology (AT) in cognitive rehabilitation by investigating the attitudes towards AT of professionals, individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI) and their caregivers in two exploratory studies. Method: A total of 147 professionals in cognitive rehabilitation filled out a web-based survey. Fifteen patients with ABI and 14 caregivers were interviewed. Results: Most professionals were willing to use AT in the future, although only 27% used AT currently in a treatment setting. Professionals with AT experience were more positive than those without about the potential of AT and their own ability to use it in their treatment programmes. Most patients and caregivers were positive about using AT in the future, still, only a minority currently used AT. Refusal to reimburse AT devices by health insurance companies appeared an important barrier for a more widespread use. Conclusions: Although enthusiasm about AT was evident in both studies, a lack of progress in the implementation of AT was noted. This could be improved by promoting knowledge and hands-on experience of professionals who work in rehabilitation centres. More evidence on the efficacy of AT is required to improve coverage of AT devices by insurance companies.

[1]  Gwyn McClelland.  Survivors , 1891, The Hospital.

[2]  A. Finset,et al.  Neuropsychological predictors in stroke rehabilitation. , 1988, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[3]  K. Khaw,et al.  Epidemiology of stroke. , 1996, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[4]  R. Grol,et al.  Personal paper: Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice , 1997 .

[5]  M. Limburg,et al.  The burden of caregiving in partners of long-term stroke survivors. , 1998, Stroke.

[6]  A. V. Zomeren,et al.  One year outcome in mild to moderate head injury: the predictive value of acute injury characteristics related to complaints and return to work , 1999, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[7]  F. Verhey,et al.  Vascular cognitive disorders Memory, mental speed and cognitive flexibility after stroke , 2002, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[8]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[9]  Tessa Hart,et al.  Clinician expectations for portable electronic devices as cognitive-behavioural orthoses in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation , 2003, Brain injury.

[10]  T. Mulder,et al.  Cognitive recovery after stroke: a 2-year follow-up. , 2003, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[11]  C. Wolfe,et al.  Natural history of cognitive impairment after stroke and factors associated with its recovery , 2003, Clinical rehabilitation.

[12]  Debra Schreckenghost,et al.  An Assistive‐Technology Intervention for Verbose Speech After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Single Case Study , 2004, The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation.

[13]  T. O'Neil-Pirozzi,et al.  Clinician influences on use of portable electronic memory devices in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation , 2004, Brain injury.

[14]  B. Jacobs,et al.  Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) for adults with severe aphasia: where we stand and how we can go further , 2004, Disability and rehabilitation.

[15]  Debra Schreckenghost,et al.  Web-Based Assistive Technology Interventions for Cognitive Impairments After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Selective Review and Two Case Studies. , 2004 .

[16]  Monica Vaccaro,et al.  Portable Electronic Devices as Memory and Organizational Aids After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Consumer Survey Study , 2004, The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation.

[17]  C. V. van Heugten,et al.  Intervention studies for caregivers of stroke survivors: a critical review. , 2005, Patient education and counseling.

[18]  Jonathan J. Evans,et al.  A randomized control trial to evaluate a paging system for people with traumatic brain injury , 2005, Brain injury.

[19]  Janice Light,et al.  Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part III – contributing factors , 2007, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[20]  Susan Fager,et al.  AAC for adults with acquired neurological conditions: A review , 2007, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[21]  Stephen Fickas,et al.  A comparison of four prompt modes for route finding for community travellers with severe cognitive impairments , 2007, Brain injury.

[22]  Martine M Smith,et al.  Roles of aided communication: perspectives of adults who use AAC , 2008, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[23]  Yvonne Gillette,et al.  Practical applications for use of PDAs and smartphones with children and adolescents who have traumatic brain injury. , 2008, NeuroRehabilitation.

[24]  Kathleen Bodisch Lynch,et al.  Personal digital assistants as cognitive aids for individuals with severe traumatic brain injury: A community-based trial , 2008, Brain injury.

[25]  Yao-Jen Chang,et al.  Autonomous indoor wayfinding for individuals with cognitive impairments , 2010, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[26]  Frans Verhey,et al.  Efficacy and usability of assistive technology for patients with cognitive deficits: a systematic review , 2010, Clinical rehabilitation.