Francesca Borgnis, Lorenzo Desideri, Rosa Maria Converti, Claudia Salatino
{"title":"对现有辅助技术成果衡量标准的系统审查。","authors":"Francesca Borgnis, Lorenzo Desideri, Rosa Maria Converti, Claudia Salatino","doi":"10.2196/51124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The World Health Organization claimed that measuring outcomes is necessary to understand the benefits of assistive technology (AT) and create evidence-based policies and systems to ensure universal access to it. In clinical practice, there is an increasing need for standardized methods to track AT interventions using outcome assessments.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review provides an overview of the available outcome measures that can be used at the follow-up stage of any AT intervention and integrated into daily clinical or service practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched for original manuscripts regarding available and used AT outcome measures by searching for titles and abstracts in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to March 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 955 articles, of which 50 (5.2%) were included in the review. Within these, 53 instruments have been mentioned and used to provide an AT outcome assessment. The most widely used tool is the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, followed by the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Technology Scale. Moreover, the identified measures addressed 8 AT outcome domains: functional efficacy, satisfaction, psychosocial impact, caregiver burden, quality of life, participation, confidence, and usability. The AT category Assistive products for activities and participation relating to personal mobility and transportation was the most involved in the reviewed articles.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among the 53 cited instruments, only 17 (32%) scales were designed to evaluate specifically assistive devices. Moreover, 64% (34/53) of the instruments were only mentioned once to denote poor uniformity and concordance in the instruments to be used, limiting the possibility of comparing the results of studies. This work could represent a good guide for promoting the use of validated AT outcome measures in clinical practice that can be helpful to AT assessment teams in their everyday activities and the improvement of clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":36224,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies","volume":" ","pages":"e51124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10687703/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Available Assistive Technology Outcome Measures: Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Francesca Borgnis, Lorenzo Desideri, Rosa Maria Converti, Claudia Salatino\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/51124\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The World Health Organization claimed that measuring outcomes is necessary to understand the benefits of assistive technology (AT) and create evidence-based policies and systems to ensure universal access to it. In clinical practice, there is an increasing need for standardized methods to track AT interventions using outcome assessments.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review provides an overview of the available outcome measures that can be used at the follow-up stage of any AT intervention and integrated into daily clinical or service practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched for original manuscripts regarding available and used AT outcome measures by searching for titles and abstracts in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to March 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 955 articles, of which 50 (5.2%) were included in the review. Within these, 53 instruments have been mentioned and used to provide an AT outcome assessment. The most widely used tool is the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, followed by the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Technology Scale. Moreover, the identified measures addressed 8 AT outcome domains: functional efficacy, satisfaction, psychosocial impact, caregiver burden, quality of life, participation, confidence, and usability. The AT category Assistive products for activities and participation relating to personal mobility and transportation was the most involved in the reviewed articles.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among the 53 cited instruments, only 17 (32%) scales were designed to evaluate specifically assistive devices. Moreover, 64% (34/53) of the instruments were only mentioned once to denote poor uniformity and concordance in the instruments to be used, limiting the possibility of comparing the results of studies. This work could represent a good guide for promoting the use of validated AT outcome measures in clinical practice that can be helpful to AT assessment teams in their everyday activities and the improvement of clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e51124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10687703/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/51124\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/51124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:世界卫生组织声称,为了了解辅助技术的好处,并制定循证政策和系统以确保普及辅助技术,测量结果是必要的。具体而言,在临床实践中,越来越需要使用结果评估来跟踪个人辅助技术(AT)干预的标准化方法。目的:本综述旨在概述可在任何at干预措施的后续阶段使用并纳入日常临床或服务实践的可用结果指标。方法:我们通过在PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science数据库中查找截至2023年3月的标题和摘要,系统地搜索关于可用和使用的AT结果测量的原始手稿。结果:我们分析了955篇文章,其中50篇被纳入。在这些文书中,有53项文书被提及并用于提供AT结果评估。最广泛使用的工具是魁北克用户对辅助技术的满意度评估,其次是辅助技术的心理社会影响量表。此外,确定的指标涉及八个AT结果领域:功能疗效、满意度、心理社会影响、护理者负担、生活质量、参与度、信心和可用性。AT类别“与个人行动和交通有关的活动和参与的辅助产品”是审查文章中涉及最多的。结论:在53种被引用的仪器中,只有17种量表(约30%)被设计用于评估特定的辅助设备。34项文书只提到过一次,表示所用文书的一致性和一致性较差,限制了比较研究结果的可能性。这项工作可以为促进在临床实践中使用经验证的AT结果测量提供一个很好的指南,这有助于AT评估团队在日常活动和临床实践的改进。临床试验:
Available Assistive Technology Outcome Measures: Systematic Review.
Background: The World Health Organization claimed that measuring outcomes is necessary to understand the benefits of assistive technology (AT) and create evidence-based policies and systems to ensure universal access to it. In clinical practice, there is an increasing need for standardized methods to track AT interventions using outcome assessments.
Objective: This review provides an overview of the available outcome measures that can be used at the follow-up stage of any AT intervention and integrated into daily clinical or service practice.
Methods: We systematically searched for original manuscripts regarding available and used AT outcome measures by searching for titles and abstracts in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to March 2023.
Results: We analyzed 955 articles, of which 50 (5.2%) were included in the review. Within these, 53 instruments have been mentioned and used to provide an AT outcome assessment. The most widely used tool is the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, followed by the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Technology Scale. Moreover, the identified measures addressed 8 AT outcome domains: functional efficacy, satisfaction, psychosocial impact, caregiver burden, quality of life, participation, confidence, and usability. The AT category Assistive products for activities and participation relating to personal mobility and transportation was the most involved in the reviewed articles.
Conclusions: Among the 53 cited instruments, only 17 (32%) scales were designed to evaluate specifically assistive devices. Moreover, 64% (34/53) of the instruments were only mentioned once to denote poor uniformity and concordance in the instruments to be used, limiting the possibility of comparing the results of studies. This work could represent a good guide for promoting the use of validated AT outcome measures in clinical practice that can be helpful to AT assessment teams in their everyday activities and the improvement of clinical practice.