Measuring what matters: a descriptive participatory case evaluation of a tool for measuring outcomes of assistive technology after acquired brain injury

Natasha Layton; Chris Le Cerf

doi:10.1071/IB23029

RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Previous Next Contents Vol 24(2)

Measuring what matters: a descriptive participatory case evaluation of a tool for measuring outcomes of assistive technology after acquired brain injury

Natasha Layton

^A ^A ^* and Chris Le Cerf ^B

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

^A Rehabilitation, Ageing and Independent Living (RAIL) Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

^B Assistive Technology User and Author, Australia

^* Correspondence to: natasha.layton@monash.edu

Brain Impairment 24(2) 137-147 https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2023.11

Submitted: 31 May 2022 Accepted: 26 May 2023 Published: 10 July 2023

© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Australasian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Abstract

Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) can lead to the need to plan for housing, assistive technology and support to meet a person’s goals. Recent Australian policy reforms have brought about opportunities for person-centred approaches to assistive technology (AT) product selection, and the opportunity for users of supports such as assistive technology and environmental adaptations to describe and measure their own outcomes. My AT Outcomes Framework (MyATOF) is an Australian tool designed for use by AT users and their support networks to articulate supports, outcomes, costs, and service delivery experiences. This article aims (i) report on use of MyATOF in a case study of ABI and AT-enabled housing and (ii) critically evaluate MyATOF tools and administration for this use case from the perspectives of the MyATOF author, an occupational therapist, and a lived experience expert with an ABI. An iterative development and test design was used to adapt the MyATOF administration procedures and conduct a case report evaluation. Results support the relevance of MyATOF conceptual domains, and detailed data about outcomes made possible by an AT-enabled home was captured. Recommendations are made to further refine the questions for ease of use by persons with ABI including simplifying the costing tool and enabling staggered administration. This case report suggests MyATOF can ‘measure what matters’ for ABI and AT-enabled housing and is worthy of further evaluation.

Keywords: Equipment/assistive devices, activities of daily living, quality of life.

References

Arnold, S., Riches, V., & Stancliffe, R. (2014). Support needs predicts funding need better than adaptive behaviour. In: IASSID 4th Europe congress.

Arnold, S. R. C., Riches, V. C., Stancliffe, R. J. (2015) Does a measure of support needs predict funding need better than a measure of adaptive and maladaptive behaviour? American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 120(5), 375-394 https://10.1352/1944-7558-120.5.375.
| Google Scholar |

Arnstein, S. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35(42), 216-224 https://www.citizenshandbook.org/arnsteinsladder.html.
| Google Scholar |

AS/ISO (2018). ISO 9999 Assistive products for persons with disability — Classification and terminology. https://infostore.saiglobal.com/en-au/Standards/AS-ISO-9999-2018-1128769_SAIG_AS_AS_2618344/

Bell, D., Prain, M., Layton, N. (2021) Assistive technology for people with deafblindness in Southern Africa: A Delphi study exploring dimensions of impact. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 18(1), 30-43.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Boisselle, A., Grajo, L. C. (2018) They said: A global perspective on access to assistive technology. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy 6(3),.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Callaway, L., Tregloan, K., Williams, G., Clark, R. (2016) Evaluating access and mobility within a new model of supported housing for people with neurotrauma: A pilot study. Brain Impairment 17(1), 64-76.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Cho, H. Y., MacLachlan, M., Clarke, M., Mannan, H. (2016) Accessible home environments for people with functional limitations: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13(8), 826.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

De Jonge, D., Layton, N., Vicary, F., & Steel, E. (2015). Motivations and incentives: Exploring assistive technology service delivery from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. In RESNA 2015: New frontiers in assistive technology, Denver, CO, USA. https://www.resna.org/sites/default/files/conference/2015/public_policy/jonge.html

de Witte, L., Steel, E., Gupta, S., Ramos, V. D., Roentgen, U. (2018) Assistive technology provision: Ttowards an international framework for assuring availability and accessibility of affordable high-quality assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 13(5), 467-472.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Desmond, D., Layton, N., Bentley, J., Boot, F. H., Borg, J., Dhungana, B. M., Scherer, M. (2018) Assistive technology and people: A position paper from the first global research, innovation and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 13(5), 437-444.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Federici, S., & Scherer, M. J. (Eds.) (2017). Assistive technology assessment handbook (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Friesen, E., Walker, L., Layton, N., Astbrink, G., Summers, M., De Jonge, D. (2014) Informing the Australian government on AT policies: ARATA’s experiences. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 10(3), 236-239.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Scherer, M. J., Deyruyter, F. (2003) A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation 25(22), 1243-1251.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Hill, S. (2011). The knowledgeable patient: Communication and participation in health (A Cochrane hHandbook). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Larsson Ranada, å., Lidström, H. (2019) Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process—A systematic review. Assistive Technology 31(2), 82-97.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Layton, N., & Borg, J. (2019). Foreword. In N. Layton, & J. Borg (Eds.), Global perspectives on assistive technology: Proceedings of the GReAT Consultation 2019 (Vol. 1, pp. 1–2). Geneva: World Health Organization.

Layton, N., Bould, E., Buchanan, R., Bredin, J., Callaway, L. (2022) Inclusive research in health, rehabilitation and assistive technology: Beyond the binary of the ‘Researcher’ and the ‘Researched’. Social Sciences 11(6), 233.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Layton, N., & Callaway, L. (2020, September). Person-centred approaches to evaluation of assistive technology products and outcomes: An Australian policy and practice perspective. In: RESNA international conference, virtual. https://www.resna.org/sites/default/files/conference/2020/GAATO/144Layton.html

Layton, N., Doyle, L., & Volkert, A. (2019, July). My Outcomes Framework: Synthesising the evidence on valued outcomes into a set of user-led and policy-relevant tools. In: Occupational Therapy Australia 28th National Conference and Exhibition, Sydney.

Layton, N., Gardy, M., & McDonald, R. (2020). Assistive technology costs and outcomes. In C. Dianne (Ed.), Assistive technology to support inclusive education (2nd ed., pp. 109–124). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620200000014010,

Layton, N., & Irlam, C. (2018). Assistive technology for older Australians: Rapid evidence review and economic pathway analysis. Canberra, Australia: National Aged Care Alliance. https://doi.org/10.25916/5d96c9395e6ca

Layton, N., Noonan, M., & O’Connor, J. (2019, September). My Assistive Technology Outcomes Framework – A collaborative tool for AT users and their professionals. In AOPA congress, Melbourne.

Layton, N., & Shih, S. (2018, August 3). Economic pathway analysis for assistive technology: A pilot study from Australia. In: RESNA annual conference, Arlington, VA.

Layton, N., Thomson, C., & Noonan, M. (2019). Consumer-defined outcomes: Applying the Assistive Technology Outcomes Framework applied to wheeled mobility and seating. In: Oceania seating symposium, Melbourne. http://oceaniaseatingsymposium.com/assets/OSS/PresThur/1100%20Natasha%20Carl.pdf

Layton, N., Volkert, A., & Joyce, R. (2018, November). ARATA / AFDO / OTA breakfast forum on assistive technology outcomes. In Australian assistive technology conference, Melbourne. https://www.arata.org.au/aatc-2018/aatc-2016-programs-and-presentations/,

Layton, N., Wilson, E. (2009) Re-conceptualizing disability and assistive technology: Australian consumers driving policy change. Technology and Disability 21(4), 135-141.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Layton, N., Wilson, E., Colgan, S., Moodie, M., & Carter, R. (2010). The equipping inclusion studies: Assistive technology use and outcomes in Victoria. https://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30030938

NDIA (2021). Specialist disability accommodation: A review of current research. https://www.ndis.gov.au/community/research-and-evaluation/home-and-living-our-research#evidence-review-transitions-from-group-homes-institutional-care-and-residential-aged-care

O’Brien, P. (2022) Inclusive research: Is the road more or less well travelled? Social Sciences 11(12), 582.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Sloan, S., Callaway, L., Winkler, D., McKinley, K., Ziino, C. (2012) Accommodation outcomes and transitions following community-based intervention for individuals with acquired brain injury. Brain Impairment 13(1), 24-43.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Smith, E. M., Gowran, R. J., Mannan, H., Donnelly, B., Alvarez, L., Bell, D., Wu, S. (2018) Enabling appropriate personnel skill-mix for progressive realization of equitable access to assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 13(5), 445-453.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Smith, R. O., Scherer, M., Cooper, R., Bell, D., Hobbs, D. A., Pettersson, C., Bauer, S. (2018) Assistive technology products: A position paper from the first global research, innovation, and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 13(5), 473-485.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html

Watchorn, V., Layton, N. (2011) Advocacy via human rights legislation: The application to assistive technology and accessible environments. Australian Journal of Human Rights 17(1), 117-138.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

WHO & UNICEF (2022). Global report on assistive technology. WHO & UNICEF (Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO). https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-report-assistive-technology

World Health Organisation (2001, 2018). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO.

Wright, C. J., Zeeman, H., Kendall, E., Whitty, J. A. (2017) What housing features should inform the development of housing solutions for adults with neurological disability? A systematic review of the literature. Health & Place 46, 234-248.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Yin, R. K. (2016). Case study research and applications (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.