Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The purpose of the study was to identify and organize evidence regarding quality of life influenced by assistive technology related to computers for people with traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI).
Distrito Federal, Brazil.
A search strategy was conducted on the PubMed, PEDro, LILACS, PsycINFO, and SCIELO. All types of study designs considering assistive technology to improve quality of life for individuals with SCI were included. After search strategy procedures, ten references were included to review. The methodologic quality of each study was evaluated using the Level of Evidence proposed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine.
Most of the studies showed that devices for computer access improve the quality of life of people with SCI, regardless of the level of injury and type of resource. However, the positive outcomes in the quality of life should be interpreted with caution, as several methodological limitations were observed in the articles.
Despite the scarcity of studies and their methodological limitations, there is evidence that assistive technology for computer access favors the quality of life of people with tetraplegia due to SCI, since it improves participation, independence, and self-esteem.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Hill, M., Noonan, V., Sakakibara, B., & Miller, W. (2010). Quality of life instruments and definitions in individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review. Spinal Cord, 48(6), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2009.164.Quality. CrossRefPubMed
Barker, R. N., Kendall, M. D., Amsters, D. I., Pershouse, K. J., Haines, T. P., & Kuipers, P. (2009). The relationship between quality of life and disability across the lifespan for people with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 47(2), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2008.82. CrossRefPubMed
Van Leeuwen, C. M. C., Post, M. W. M., Van Der Woude, L. H. V., et al. (2012). Changes in life satisfaction in persons with spinal cord injury during and after inpatient rehabilitation: Adaptation or measurement bias? Quality of Life Research, 21(9), 1499–1508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136011-0073-7. CrossRefPubMed
The WHOQOL Group (1995) The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science & Medicine, 41(10), 1403–1409. CrossRef
Cooper, R., & Cooper, R. (2010). Quality-of-life technology for people with spinal cord injuries. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics, 21(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2009.07.004. PubMed
McKinley, W., Tewksbury, M., Sitter, P., Reed, J., & Floyd, S. (2004). Assistive technology and computer adaptations for individuals with spinal cord injury. NeuroRehabilitation, 19(2), 141–146. PubMed
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006. CrossRef
OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/. Published 2011. Accessed 26 April 2017.
Rigby, P., Ryan, S. E., & Campbell, K. A. (2011). Electronic aids to daily living and quality of life for persons with tetraplegia. Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology, 6(3), 260–267. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2010.522678. CrossRefPubMed
Scherer, M., & Cushman, L. (2001) Measuring subjective quality of life following spinal cord injury: A validation study of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment. Disability and Rehabilitation 23(9), 387–393. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11394589.
Ripat, J. D., & Woodgate, R. L. (2012). The role of assistive technology in self-perceived participation. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 35(2), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0b013e3283531806. CrossRefPubMed
Verdonck, M., Chard, G., & Nolan, M. (2011). Electronic aids to daily living: Be able to do what you want. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 6(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2010.525291. CrossRefPubMed
Craig, A., Tran, Y., McIsaac, P., & Boord, P. (2005) The efficacy and benefits of environmental control systems for the severely disabled. Medical Science Monitor 11(1):RA32–RA39. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15614204.
Des Jarlais, D., Lyles, C., & Crepaz, N. (2004). Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health, 94(3), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00785.x. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Tsai, T.-H., Nash, R. J., & Tseng, K. C. (2009). A five-layer users’ need hierarchy of computer input device selection: A contextual observation survey of computer users with cervical spinal injuries (CSI). Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 4(3), 158–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483100802543312. CrossRefPubMed
Alves, A. C. J., Matsukura, T. S., & Scherer, M. J. (2017). Cross-cultural adaptation of the assistive technology device—Predisposition assessment (ATD PA) for use in Brazil (ATD PA Br). Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 12(2), 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2016.1233294. CrossRefPubMed
- Computer assistive technology and associations with quality of life for individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review
Helena Eri Shimizu
- Springer International Publishing