Referencer til Ergoterapeuten Forskning, 2021
Opfølgning på hjælpemidler mangler i praksis
1: Dansk Handikap Forbund. Rapport: Brugerundersøgelse af hjælpemiddelformidling. 2017.
2: Brandt Å, Christensen A, Grünberger P. How to Accomplish the Assistive Technology Service Delivery Process for Adults in Order to Obtain the Best Outcomes - A Literature Review. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;217:469-77.
3: Ranada ÅL, Lidström H. Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process-A systematic review. Assist Technol. 2019;31(2):82-97.
4: Sakakibara BM, Miller WC, Souza M, Nikolova V, Best KL. Wheelchair skills training to improve confidence with using a manual wheelchair among older adults: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Jun;94(6):1031-7.
5: Larsen SM, Mortensen RF, Kristensen HK, Hounsgaard L. Older adults’ perspectives on the process of becoming users of assistive technology: a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019 Feb;14(2):182-193.
6: Brandt Å og Christensen DN. Kompetenceprofiler for ergoterapeuter på hjælpemiddelområdet – anbefalinger om viden, færdigheder og kompetence. Ergoterapiforeningen, København 2018.
Faktaboks: Hvorfor er hjælpemidler vigtige?
1: Brandt Å og Christensen DN. Kompetenceprofiler for ergoterapeuter på hjælpemiddelområdet – anbefalinger om viden, færdigheder og kompetence. Ergoterapiforeningen, København 2018.
2: Barbosa RTA, de Oliveira ASB, de Lima Antão JYF, et al. Augmentative and alternative communication in children with Down's syndrome: a systematic review. BMC Pediatr. 2018 May 11;18(1):160.
3: Baldassin V, Shimizu HE, Fachin-Martins E. Computer assistive technology and associations with quality of life for individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2018 Mar;27(3):597-607.
4: Bertrand K, Raymond MH, Miller WC, Martin Ginis KA, Demers L. Walking Aids for Enabling Activity and Participation: A Systematic Review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Dec;96(12):894-903.
5: Brandt Å, Jensen MP, Søberg MS, Andersen SD, Sund T. Information and communication technology-based assistive technology to compensate for impaired cognition in everyday life: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020 Oct;15(7):810-824.
6: Chamberlain MA, Thornley G, Stowe J, Wright V. Evaluation of aids and equipment for the bath: II. A possible solution to the problem. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1981 Feb 1;20(1):38-43.
6: Kruse CS, Fohn J, Umunnakwe G, Patel K, Patel S. Evaluating the Facilitators, Barriers, and Medical Outcomes Commensurate with the Use of Assistive Technology to Support People with Dementia: A Systematic Review Literature. Healthcare (Basel). 2020 Aug 18;8(3):278.
7: Andersen C, Kolmos A, Andersen K, Sippel V, Stenager E. Applying sensory modulation to mental health inpatient care to reduce seclusion and restraint: a case control study. Nord J Psychiatry. 2017 Oct;71(7):525-528.
Hvorfor står hjælpemidler ubrugte hen?
1: Dansk Handikap Forbund. Rapport: Brugerundersøgelse af hjælpemiddelformidling. 2017.
2: Ranada ÅL, Lidström H. Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process-A systematic review. Assist Technol. 2019;31(2):82-97.
3: Sund T, Brandt Å. Adult Scandinavians’ use of powered scooters: user satisfaction, frequency of use, and prediction of daily use. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2017.
4: Bertrand K, Raymond M-H, Miller WC, Ginis KAM Demers L. Walking Aids for Enabling Activity and Participation - A Systematic Review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2017;96:894–903.
5: Lund ML, Nygaard L. Incorporating or Resisting Assistive Devices: Different Approaches to Achieving a Desired Occupational Self-Image. OTJR Occupation Participation Health 2003;23(2):67-75.
6: Scherer MJ, Federici S. Why people use and don't use technologies: Introduction to the special issue on assistive technologies for cognition/cognitive support technologies. NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;37(3):315-9.
7: Federici S, Borsci S. Providing assistive technology in Italy: the perceived delivery process quality as affecting abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(1):22-31.
8: Dijcks BP, De Witte LP, Gelderblom GJ, Wessels RD, Soede M. Non-use of assistive technology in The Netherlands: a non-issue? Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006 Jan-Jun;1(1-2):97-102.
9: Tuazon JR, Jahan A, Jutai JW. Understanding adherence to assistive devices among older adults: a conceptual review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019 Jul;14(5):424-433.
10: Peek ST, Wouters EJ, van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJ. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014 Apr;83(4):235-48.
11: Larsen SM, Mortensen RF, Kristensen HK, Hounsgaard L. Older adults’ perspectives on the process of becoming users of assistive technology: a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 2019;14:2,182-193.
12: Dolan MJ, Henderson GI. Patient and equipment profile for wheelchair seating clinic provision. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014 Mar;9(2):136-43.
13: Federici S, Meloni F, Borsci S. The abandonment of assistive technology in Italy: a survey of National Health Service users. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016 Aug;52(4):516-26.
Fra stok og briller til elscooter
1: Brandt Å, Stapelfeldt C. Forbrug af mobilitetshjælpemidler 2002-2006 - på basis af data fra Zealand Care. Hjælpemiddelinstituttet 2009. Kan tilgås her: https://netvaerk.socialstyrelsen.dk/page27.aspx?recordid27=632
Træning i hverdagsteknologier kræver specialviden
1: Kaptain RJ. Everyday life activities of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: performance, management and everyday technology use. Ph.d. thesis 2020. Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
2: Malinowsky C, Kottorp A, Wallin A, Nordlund A, Björklund E, Melin I, Pernevik A, Rosenberg L, Nygård L. Differences in the use of everyday technology among persons with MCI, SCI and older adults without known cognitive impairment. Int Psychogeriatr. 2017 Jul;29(7):1193-1200.
3: Wallcook S, Nygård L, Kottorp A, et al. Kaleidoscopic associations between life outside home and the technological environment that shape occupational injustice as revealed through cross-sectional statistical modelling. Journal of occupational science 2020: https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2020.1818610.
4: Hagberg JE. Livet genom tekniklandskapet. Livslopp, åldrande och vardagsteknikens förändring [Life thoruh the technical landscape.The course of lie, aging and everyday technology’s change]. Work report 2008:1, NISAI. University of Linkoping, Sweden.
Hjælpemidler og ergoterapi – det perfekte ægteskab?
1. Resolution WHA71.8. Improving access to assistive techology. In: Seventy-first World Health Assembly, Geneva, 21-26 May 2018. Resolutions and decisions, annexes. Geneva: World Health Organisation: 2018.
2. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations, 2006.
3. Shivani Gupta. Invisible lives; tales of people with severe disabilities living in rural India. PhD thesis, Maastricht University, the Netherlands, 2021.
4. In the United States the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) has a system of accrediting AT professionals, and the WHO is working on a similar system, but that is not yet operational. A few universities in the world offer masters courses on AT, but the numbers of students are small.
5. Witte L de, Abdi S, Hawley M, Potter S, Kitsare I, Di Sabato Guerrante R. Emerging Technologies and Their Potential for Assistive Technology. Background paper for the WHO Global Report on Assistive Technology. Centre for Assistive Technology and Connected Healthcare, University of Sheffield / WIPO, 2020.
På forskerens bord I
COPM i DK: State of the art
1. Townsend E. Enabling Occupation: An Occupational Therapy Perspective. 1st ed. Townsend E, editor. Ottawa: anadian Association of Occupational Therapists, CAOT; 1997.
2. Townsend E, Polatajko HJ. Enabling Occupation II: Advancing an Occupational Therapy vision for Health, Well-being and Justice through Occupation. 2th ed. Townsend E, Polatajko HJ, editors. Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists; 2013.
3. Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl MA, Polatajko HJ, Pollock N. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), 5th edition - revised. 5th. COPM Inc.; 2019.
4. Rogers CR. Client-centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1951.
5. Sumsion T, Law M. A review of evidence on the conceptual elements. Can J Occup Ther. 2006;73(3):153–62.
6. Enemark Larsen A, Adamsen HN, Boots S, Delkus CG, Pedersen LL, Christensen JR. A survey on client-centered practice among Danish occupational therapists. Scand J Occup Ther. 2018;0(0):1–15.
7. Regeringen DR og K. Nationale mål for sundheds- væsenet. Minist Heal [Internet]. 2013;24. Available from: http://www.regionsjaelland.dk/Sundhed/Tjekvoreskvalitet/NPR/PublishingIm... - dokumenter/Nationale-maal-23062017/Nationale-Maal-2017-juni-2017.pdf%0Ahttp://www.sum.dk/
8. Jacobsen C, Pedersen V, Albeck K, V P, Albeck K, Teknologivurdering M, et al. Patientinddragelse mellem ideal og virkelighed – [Internet]. Vol. 8, … : Sundhedsstyrelsen, Enhed for …. 2008. 1–126 p. Available from: http://www.kora.dk/media/272116/dsi-1584.pdf%5Cnhttp://scholar.google.co...
9. Danske Regioner. Styring efter værdi for patienten [Internet]. Danske Regioner. 2015. Available from: http://www.regioner.dk/media/1313/afrapportering-styring-efter-vaerdi-fo...
10. Enemark Larsen A, Rasmussen B, Christensen JR. Enhancing a Client-Centred Practice with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Occup Ther Int. 2018;5956301:13–5.
11. Enemark Larsen A, Winge CJ, Christensen JR. Clinical utility of the Danish version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Scand J Occup Ther. 2019;3:1–12.
12. Enemark Larsen A, Morville A Le, Hansen T. Translating the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure to Danish, addressing face and content validity. Scand J Occup Ther. 2019;26(1):33–45.
13. Enemark Larsen A, Carlsson G. Utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as an admission and outcome measure in interdisciplinary community-based geriatric rehabilitation. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012;19(2):204–13.
14. Townsend EA, Polatajko HJ. Menneskelig Aktivitet II (Enabling Occupation II in Danish). 1th ed. København: Munksgaard; 2013.
15. Enemark Larsen A, Wehberg S, Christensen JR. Looking into the Content of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM): A Danish Cross-Sectional Study. Occup Ther Int. 2020;9573950:1–11.
16. Enemark Larsen A, Wehberg S, Christensen JR. The validity of the Danish version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Occup Ther Int. 2020;1309104:1–11.
17. Smart A. A multi-dimensional model of clinical utility. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2006;18(5):377–82.
18. Wressle E. Improed client particioation in the rehabilitation process using a client- centred goal formulation structure. 2002;(12):5–11.
19. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in Medicine. 1. Cambridge: Cambride University Press; 2011.
20. Enemark Larsen A, Wehberg S, Christensen JR. The realibility of the Danish version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Br J Occup Ther. 2020;submitted.
21. Enemark-Larsen A, Christensen J, Wehberg S. The responsiveness of the Danish Version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Submitted February 2021. 2021.
På forskerens bord II
ADL Interview
1. Wæhrens EE. Measuring quality of occupational performance based on self-report and observation. Development and validation of instruments to evaluate ADL task performance. : Umeå University, Sweden; 2010.
2. Wæhrens EE, Bliddal H, Danneskiold-Samsøe B, Lund H, Fisher AG. Differences between questionnaire- and interview-based measures of activities of daily living (ADL) ability and their association with observed ADL ability in women with rheumatoid arthritis, knee osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia. Scand J Rheumatol. 2012;41(2):95-102.
3. Tornquist K, Sonn U. Towards an ADL taxonomy for occupational therapists. Previously published in Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 1994; 1:69-76. Scand J Occup Ther. 2014;21 Suppl 1:20-7.
4. Törnquist K, Sonn U. ADL Taxonomien - bedömning av aktivitetsförmåga Nacka Förbundet Sveriges Arbetsterapeuter; 2001
5. Wæhrens E. ADL Taxonomien. København: Ergoterapeutforeningen 1998.
6. Törnquist K. Att fastställe og mäta förmåga til dagliga livets aktiviteter (ADL): en kritisk granskning av ADL instrumenten og arbetsterapi praksis.: Göteborg Universitet; 1995.
7. Bendixen H, Wæhrens E, Wilcke J, Sørensen L. Self-reported quality of ADL task performance among patients with COPD exacerbations. Scand J Occup Ther. 2014;21(4):313-20.
8. Wæhrens EE, Brandt Å, Peoples H, la Cour K. Everyday activities when living at home with advanced cancer: A cross-sectional study. European J Cancer Care. 2020;e13258.
9. Winkel A, Langberg H, Wæhrens E. Reablement in a community setting. . Disabil Rehabil. 2014;37(15):1347-52.
10. Nielsen KT, Wæhrens EE. Occupational therapy evaluation: use of self-report and/or observation? Scand J Occup Ther. 2015;22(1):13-23.
11. Larsson Lund M, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Perceived difficulty in the use of everyday technology: relationships with everyday functioning in people with acquired brain injury with a special focus on returning to work. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(19):1618-25.
12. Larsson-Lund M, Kottorp A, Malinowsky C. Return to work in people with acquired brain injury: association with observed ability to use everyday technology. Scand J Occup Ther. 2017;24(4):281-9.
13. Wæhrens E, Fisher A. Developing linear ADL ability measures based on the ADL Taxonomy: A Rasch analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2009;16:159-71.