了解助行产品的采用情况:系统性综述。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION
Emily Gleaton, Robert Kistenberg, Lucas Provine, Christopher Wiese
{"title":"了解助行产品的采用情况:系统性综述。","authors":"Emily Gleaton, Robert Kistenberg, Lucas Provine, Christopher Wiese","doi":"10.1080/17483107.2024.2391403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective</b>: A systematic review of 30 full-text articles was conducted on user acceptance of technologies that assist people who have functional difficulties (FD) with activities of daily living (ADLs) and mobility. Our objective was to better understand the adoption of mobility assistive products (mobAP) among people with FD.</p><p><p><b>Methods</b>: A literature search in EBSCO, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science yielded 423 articles. Ultimately, thirty articles met our inclusion criteria.</p><p><p><b>Results</b>: Four overarching themes were identified using a thematic analysis approach. The themes were <i>Empowerment Through the Use of Mobility Assistive Products, Incorporating User-Centered Design, Understanding the Challenges Users Encounter, and Improvements to Research Design</i>. These themes highlight trends across studies that indicate that mobility assistive products have the potential to improve the well-being of people with FD. Still, significant efforts need to be made to improve the training with these devices. Moreover, researchers, healthcare providers, and designers should carefully consider the environmental, social, and facilitating conditions that moderate acceptance of these products.</p><p><p><b>Conclusion</b>: This work advocates for more inclusive research design methodologies based on the limitations of the included studies. Ultimately, this review highlights the importance of understanding mobility assistive product acceptance among people with FD. By synthesizing the literature and identifying knowledge gaps, this review informs evidence-based decision-making for healthcare professionals, policymakers, and designers to develop user-centered healthcare assistive products, training, and assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":47806,"journal":{"name":"Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding adoption of mobility assistive products: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Gleaton, Robert Kistenberg, Lucas Provine, Christopher Wiese\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17483107.2024.2391403\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective</b>: A systematic review of 30 full-text articles was conducted on user acceptance of technologies that assist people who have functional difficulties (FD) with activities of daily living (ADLs) and mobility. Our objective was to better understand the adoption of mobility assistive products (mobAP) among people with FD.</p><p><p><b>Methods</b>: A literature search in EBSCO, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science yielded 423 articles. Ultimately, thirty articles met our inclusion criteria.</p><p><p><b>Results</b>: Four overarching themes were identified using a thematic analysis approach. The themes were <i>Empowerment Through the Use of Mobility Assistive Products, Incorporating User-Centered Design, Understanding the Challenges Users Encounter, and Improvements to Research Design</i>. These themes highlight trends across studies that indicate that mobility assistive products have the potential to improve the well-being of people with FD. Still, significant efforts need to be made to improve the training with these devices. Moreover, researchers, healthcare providers, and designers should carefully consider the environmental, social, and facilitating conditions that moderate acceptance of these products.</p><p><p><b>Conclusion</b>: This work advocates for more inclusive research design methodologies based on the limitations of the included studies. Ultimately, this review highlights the importance of understanding mobility assistive product acceptance among people with FD. By synthesizing the literature and identifying knowledge gaps, this review informs evidence-based decision-making for healthcare professionals, policymakers, and designers to develop user-centered healthcare assistive products, training, and assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2024.2391403\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2024.2391403","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的我们对30篇全文文章进行了系统性综述,内容涉及用户对辅助功能障碍(FD)患者进行日常生活活动(ADLs)和移动的技术的接受程度。我们的目标是更好地了解功能障碍患者对移动辅助产品(mobAP)的采用情况:我们在 EBSCO、PubMed、SCOPUS 和 Web of Science 上进行了文献检索,共检索到 423 篇文章。最终,有 30 篇文章符合我们的纳入标准:采用主题分析法确定了四个总体主题。这些主题分别是:通过使用助行产品增强用户能力、融入以用户为中心的设计、了解用户遇到的挑战以及改进研究设计。这些主题突出了各项研究的趋势,表明助行产品具有改善 FD 患者福祉的潜力。不过,我们仍需做出巨大努力来改善这些设备的使用培训。此外,研究人员、医疗保健提供者和设计者应仔细考虑环境、社会和便利条件,这些因素会影响对这些产品的接受程度:本研究基于所纳入研究的局限性,提倡采用更具包容性的研究设计方法。最终,本综述强调了了解 FD 患者对移动辅助产品接受程度的重要性。通过归纳文献并找出知识差距,本综述为医疗保健专业人士、政策制定者和设计者提供了基于证据的决策依据,以开发以用户为中心的医疗保健辅助产品、培训和评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding adoption of mobility assistive products: a systematic review.

Objective: A systematic review of 30 full-text articles was conducted on user acceptance of technologies that assist people who have functional difficulties (FD) with activities of daily living (ADLs) and mobility. Our objective was to better understand the adoption of mobility assistive products (mobAP) among people with FD.

Methods: A literature search in EBSCO, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science yielded 423 articles. Ultimately, thirty articles met our inclusion criteria.

Results: Four overarching themes were identified using a thematic analysis approach. The themes were Empowerment Through the Use of Mobility Assistive Products, Incorporating User-Centered Design, Understanding the Challenges Users Encounter, and Improvements to Research Design. These themes highlight trends across studies that indicate that mobility assistive products have the potential to improve the well-being of people with FD. Still, significant efforts need to be made to improve the training with these devices. Moreover, researchers, healthcare providers, and designers should carefully consider the environmental, social, and facilitating conditions that moderate acceptance of these products.

Conclusion: This work advocates for more inclusive research design methodologies based on the limitations of the included studies. Ultimately, this review highlights the importance of understanding mobility assistive product acceptance among people with FD. By synthesizing the literature and identifying knowledge gaps, this review informs evidence-based decision-making for healthcare professionals, policymakers, and designers to develop user-centered healthcare assistive products, training, and assessments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
13.60%
发文量
128
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信