Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen
Top
Gepubliceerd in:
hoofdstuk lezen eerste hoofdstuk lezen

2023 | OriginalPaper | Hoofdstuk

26. Technologie in zorg en welzijn

Auteurs : Edith Hagedoren, MSc, Jeanne Heijkers, MSc, Els Knippenberg, PhD

Gepubliceerd in: Grondslagen van ergotherapie

Uitgeverij: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Samenvatting

Technologie is binnen de huidige samenleving niet meer weg te denken, ook binnen de zorg- en welzijnssector heeft technologie een meerwaarde. Technologie is een geschikt middel om de zorg toekomstbestendig te maken. In dit hoofdstuk wordt zorgtechnologie als de overkoepelende term gezien van zowel zorg op afstand of zogenaamde e-health als ondersteunende technologie; dat hulpmiddelen en diensten rondom hulpmiddelen omvat. Een ergotherapeut kan zes verschillende rollen vervullen ten aanzien van zorgtechnologie, namelijk: gebruiker, trainer, adviseur, ontwerper, implementeerder en onderzoeker. Binnen elke rol wordt uitgelegd wat een ergotherapeut in deze rol kan betekenen voor personen, organisaties en gemeenschappen, met een vraag of uitdaging in het dagelijks handelen en welke bijdrage technologie kan leveren. Mogelijke toepassingen worden kort beschreven zoals robotica, domotica, extended reality. Ook de procesbeschrijving rond hulpmiddelenzorg en de diverse assessment-instrumenten die ontwikkeld zijn voor de evaluatie van zorgtechnologie worden beschreven.
vorige hoofdstuk Assessment-instrumenten in ergotherapie
volgende hoofdstuk Kwaliteitszorg
Literatuur
1.
Ministerie van Volksgezondheid Welzijn en Sport. Dialoognota Ouder Worden 2020–2040. Den Haag; 2021.
2.
Heijkers J, Spierts N, De Witte L. Onderwijs in technologie bij opleidingen ergotherapie: Dat kan (en moet) beter! Ergotherapie: Magazine voor ergotherapeuten. 2015;2015(1):34–41.
3.
Kaljouw M, Van Vliet K. Naar nieuwe zorg en zorgberoepen: de contouren. Zorginstituut Nederland; 2015.
4.
Knippenberg E, Verbrugghe J, Lamers I, Palmaers S, Timmermans A, Spooren A. Markerless motion capture systems as training device in neurological rehabilitation: a systematic review of their use, application, target population and efficacy. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14(1):61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Sriram V, Jenkinson C, Peters M. Informal carers’ experience of assistive technology use in dementia care at home: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):160.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
7.
Paquin K, Crawley J, Harris JE, Horton S. Survivors of chronic stroke - participant evaluations of commercial gaming for rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(21):2144–52.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Gamito P, Oliveira J, Coelho C, Morais D, Lopes P, Pacheco J, et al. Cognitive training on stroke patients via virtual reality-based serious games. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(4):385–8.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Laver KE, Lange B, George S, Deutsch JE, Saposnik G, Crotty M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11(11):CD008349.
11.
Lozano-Quilis JA, Gil-Gomez H, Gil-Gomez JA, Albiol-Perez S, Palacios-Navarro G, Fardoun HM, et al. Virtual rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis using a kinect-based system: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Serious Games. 2014;2(2): e12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
De Araujo AVL, Neiva JFO, Monteiro CBM, Magalhaes FH. Efficacy of virtual reality rehabilitation after spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:7106951.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Dominguez-Tellez P, Moral-Munoz JA, Salazar A, Casado-Fernandez E, Lucena-Anton D. Game-based virtual reality interventions to improve upper limb motor function and quality of life after stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. Games for health journal. 2020;9(1):1–10.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Wouters M, Huygens M, Voogdt H, Meurs M, De Groot J, Lamain A, et al. Samen aan zet! eHealth-monitor 2019. Den Haag en Utrecht: Nictiz en Nivel; 2019.
15.
Bakker K, Bouma A, Heijkers J, Pol M. Grote interesse en behoefte aan meer kennis. Ergotherapie Magazine. 2019:42–6.
16.
Cook AM, Polgar JM, Encarnação P. Assistive technologies: principles and practice. Elsevier - Health Sciences Division; 2019.
17.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9999:2016 Assistive products for persons with disability - classification and terminology. 6th edition. Geneva; 2016.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Anttila H, Samuelsson K, Salminen A-L, Brandt Å. Quality of evidence of assistive technology interventions for people with disability: an overview of systematic reviews. Technol Disabil. 2012;24(1):9–48.CrossRef
22.
Patiëntenfederatie Nederland. Rapport. Meldactie hulpmiddelen. Ervaringen met keuze, aanvraag, levering en gebruik van hulpmiddelen. Utrecht; 2019.
23.
24.
Creemers H, Beelen A, Grupstra H, Nollet F, Van den Berg LH. The provision of assistive devices and home adaptations to patients with ALS in the Netherlands: patients’ perspectives. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration. 2014;15(5–6):420–5.CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Van Bijsterveldt M, Hogema L, Cucic C. Verkenning extramurale hulpmiddelen met aanspraak op basis van de zorgverzekeringswet en hulpmiddelen voor diabetes, incontinentie en stoma als voorbeeld. Den Haag: ZonMw; 2015.
30.
31.
De Veld A, Lemette M, Heijsman A. Adviseren door ergotherapeuten. Ergotherapeutische adviesmethodiek. 2e druk. Boom; 2021.
32.
Verhoef J, Zalmstra A. Beroepscompetenties ergotherapie. Boom Lemma; 2013.
33.
34.
Cook A, Hussey S. Assistive technologies: principles and practice. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1995.
35.
Ghysels R, Vanroye E, Westhovens M, Spooren A. A tool to enhance occupational therapy reasoning from ICF perspective: the Hasselt Occupational Performance Profile (H-OPP). Scand J Occup Ther. 2017;24(2):126–35.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching person & technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol Disabil. 2002;14(3):125–31.CrossRef
37.
Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud. 2009;4(3):114–23.
38.
Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Int J Hum-Comput Int. 2008;24(6):574–94.CrossRef
39.
Lewis JR, Sauro J, editors. The factor structure of the system usability scale. International conference on human centered design. Springer; 2009.
40.
41.
Kirakowski J, Corbett M. SUMI: the Software Usability Measurement Inventory. Br J Edu Technol. 1993;24(3):210–2.CrossRef
42.
Lund AM. Measuring usability with the use questionnaire12. Usability interface. 2001;8(2):3–6.
43.
Gao M, Kortum P, Oswald F. Psychometric evaluation of the USE (Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of use) questionnaire for reliability and validity. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2018;62(1):1414–8.CrossRef
44.
Mace R. Universal design: barrier free environments for everyone. Designers West. 1985;33(1):147–52.
45.
Schoville RR, Titler MG. Guiding healthcare technology implementation: a new integrated technology implementation model. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 2015;33(3):99–107.
46.
Grol R, Wensing M. Implementation of change in healthcare: a complex problem. In: Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M, Davis D, editors. Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care. 2nd edition. UK: Wiley Blackwell & BMJ Books; 2020.
47.
Gücin NÖ, Berk ÖS. Technology acceptance in health care: an integrative review of predictive factors and intervention programs. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2015;195:1698–704.CrossRef
48.
Lin SP, Hsieh CY, Ho TM, editors. Innovative healthcare cloud service model. Applied Mechanics and Materials. Trans Tech Publ.; 2014.
49.
Mun YY, Jackson JD, Park JS, Probst JC. Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: toward an integrative view. Information & Management. 2006;43(3):350–63.CrossRef
50.
Escobar-Rodríguez T, Romero-Alonso M. The acceptance of information technology innovations in hospitals: differences between early and late adopters. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2014;33(11):1231–43.CrossRef
51.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations: modifications of a model for telecommunications. Die diffusion von innovationen in der telekommunikation: Springer; 1995. pp. 25–38.
52.
Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989:319–40.
53.
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly. 2003:425–78.
54.
Venkatesh V, Thong JY, Xu X. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: a synthesis and the road ahead. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2016;17(5):328–76.
55.
Peek ST, Luijkx KG, Rijnaard MD, Nieboer ME, Van der Voort CS, Aarts S, et al. Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology. 2016;62(2):226–37.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Pol M, Van Nes F, Van Hartingsveldt M, Buurman B, De Rooij S, Kröse B. P315: Older people’s perspectives regarding the use of sensor monitoring in their home. Euro Geriatr Med. 2014;5:S180–1.CrossRef
57.
Pol M, Peek S, Van Nes F, Van Hartingsveldt M, Buurman B, Kröse B. Everyday life after a hip fracture: what community-living older adults perceive as most beneficial for their recovery. Age Ageing. 2019;48(3):440–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Pol MC, Ter Riet G, van Hartingsveldt M, Kröse B, Buurman BM. Effectiveness of sensor monitoring in a rehabilitation programme for older patients after hip fracture: a three-arm stepped wedge randomised trial. Age and ageing. 2019.
59.
Ripat J, Woodgate R. The intersection of culture, disability and assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(2):87–96.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Østensjø S, Carlberg EB, Vøllestad NK. The use and impact of assistive devices and other environmental modifications on everyday activities and care in young children with cerebral palsy. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(14):849–61.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Parette P. Transition and assistive technology planning with families across cultures. Career Develop Exception Individ. 1999;22(2):213–31.CrossRef
62.
Pape TL-B, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disabil Rehab. 2002;24(1–3):5–20.
63.
Trembath D, Balandin S, Rossi C. Cross-cultural practice and autism. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2005;30(4):240–2.CrossRef
64.
Parette HP, Brotherson MJ. Family-centered and culturally responsive assistive technology decision making. Infants Young Child. 2004;17(4):355–67.CrossRef
65.
Broadband Commission. The state of broadband: broadband catalyzing sustainable development. Biggs P., editor. Broadband Commission for sustainable development; 2017.
66.
67.
68.
Mois G, Beer JM. The role of healthcare robotics in providing support to older adults: a socio-ecological perspective. Curr Geriatr Rep. 2020;9(2):82–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
69.
Royakkers L, Damen F, Van Est R, Besters M, Brom F, Dorren G, et al. Overal robots: automatisering van de liefde tot de dood. 2012.
70.
Bemelmans R, Gelderblom GJ, Jonker P, De Witte L. Effectiveness of robot Paro in intramural psychogeriatric care: a multicenter quasi-experimental study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16(11):946–50.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Knippenberg E, Van Hout L, Smeets W, Palmaers S, Timmermans A, Spooren A. Developing an intelligent activity-based client-centred training system with a user-centred approach. Technology and Health Care: Off J Euro Soc Eng Med. 2020;28(4):355–68.CrossRef
72.
Knippenberg E, Lamers I, Timmermans A, Spooren A. Motivation, usability, and credibility of an intelligent activity-based client-centred training system to improve functional performance in neurological rehabilitation: an exploratory cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(14).
73.
Knippenberg E, Timmermans A, Palmaers S, Spooren A. Use of a technology-based system to motivate older adults in performing physical activity: a feasibility study. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metagegevens
Titel
Technologie in zorg en welzijn
Auteurs
Edith Hagedoren, MSc
Jeanne Heijkers, MSc
Els Knippenberg, PhD
Copyright
2023
Uitgeverij
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Boek
Grondslagen van ergotherapie

Print ISBN: 978-90-368-2828-4

Elektronisch ISBN: 978-90-368-2829-1

Copyright: 2023

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-368-2829-1_26