Assistive devices non-use, abandonment, or non-adherence? Toward standard terminology for assistive devices outcomes.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Assistive Technology Pub Date : 2024-06-05 DOI:10.1080/10400435.2024.2362139
Alhadi M Jahan, Paulette Guitard, Jeffrey W Jutai
{"title":"Assistive devices non-use, abandonment, or non-adherence? Toward standard terminology for assistive devices outcomes.","authors":"Alhadi M Jahan, Paulette Guitard, Jeffrey W Jutai","doi":"10.1080/10400435.2024.2362139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For individuals with disabilities, failure to use prescribed assistive technology devices (ATDs) according to professional recommendations can have detrimental health consequences. The literature has employed various terms to describe this phenomenon such as nonuse, abandonment, and non-adherence to characterize this behavior, lacking clear and standardized definitions. Consistent use of a standardized language is critical for advancing research in this area. This study aims to identify and describe the concepts related to the failure to use prescribed ATDs, along with the associated contexts, and proposes a framework for standardizing terminology in this domain. A narrative literature review encompassing studies from inception to June 2023 was conducted to elucidate these concepts. Out of 1029 initially identified articles, 27 were retained for in-depth analysis. The review unveiled a significant inconsistency in the use of terms like nonuse, abandonment, noncompliance, and non-adherence. Some articles even employed these terms interchangeably without clear definitions. Only 10 of the 27 reviewed articles provided definitions for the terminology they used. This highlights the crucial need for adopting valid conceptual models to select appropriate terms. Researchers are strongly encouraged to furnish operational definitions aligned with theoretical models and relevant to their research context to advance this field consistently.</p>","PeriodicalId":51568,"journal":{"name":"Assistive Technology","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assistive Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2024.2362139","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For individuals with disabilities, failure to use prescribed assistive technology devices (ATDs) according to professional recommendations can have detrimental health consequences. The literature has employed various terms to describe this phenomenon such as nonuse, abandonment, and non-adherence to characterize this behavior, lacking clear and standardized definitions. Consistent use of a standardized language is critical for advancing research in this area. This study aims to identify and describe the concepts related to the failure to use prescribed ATDs, along with the associated contexts, and proposes a framework for standardizing terminology in this domain. A narrative literature review encompassing studies from inception to June 2023 was conducted to elucidate these concepts. Out of 1029 initially identified articles, 27 were retained for in-depth analysis. The review unveiled a significant inconsistency in the use of terms like nonuse, abandonment, noncompliance, and non-adherence. Some articles even employed these terms interchangeably without clear definitions. Only 10 of the 27 reviewed articles provided definitions for the terminology they used. This highlights the crucial need for adopting valid conceptual models to select appropriate terms. Researchers are strongly encouraged to furnish operational definitions aligned with theoretical models and relevant to their research context to advance this field consistently.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
辅助设备不使用、放弃还是不坚持使用?实现辅助设备结果的标准术语。
对于残障人士来说,不按照专业建议使用处方中规定的辅助技术设备(ATD)可能会对健康造成不利影响。文献中使用了各种术语来描述这种现象,如不使用、放弃和不坚持等来描述这种行为,但缺乏明确和标准化的定义。统一使用标准化语言对于推进该领域的研究至关重要。本研究旨在识别和描述与不使用处方药相关的概念以及相关背景,并提出一个该领域术语标准化的框架。为了阐明这些概念,我们对从开始到 2023 年 6 月的研究进行了叙述性文献综述。在最初确定的 1029 篇文章中,保留了 27 篇进行深入分析。综述发现,不使用、放弃、不遵守和不坚持等术语的使用存在很大的不一致性。有些文章甚至在没有明确定义的情况下交替使用这些术语。在 27 篇被审查的文章中,只有 10 篇提供了所使用术语的定义。这突出表明,采用有效的概念模型来选择适当的术语至关重要。我们强烈建议研究人员提供与理论模型相一致并与其研究背景相关的操作定义,以持续推进这一领域的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Assistive Technology
Assistive Technology REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Assistive Technology is an applied, scientific publication in the multi-disciplinary field of technology for people with disabilities. The journal"s purpose is to foster communication among individuals working in all aspects of the assistive technology arena including researchers, developers, clinicians, educators and consumers. The journal will consider papers from all assistive technology applications. Only original papers will be accepted. Technical notes describing preliminary techniques, procedures, or findings of original scientific research may also be submitted. Letters to the Editor are welcome. Books for review may be sent to authors or publisher.
期刊最新文献
Power assist add-ons for adult manual wheelchair users: A scoping review. Ultralight wheelchair part failures are associated with sensor-monitored road shocks: A pilot study. International Society of Wheelchair Professionals' Basic Manual Wheelchair Service Provision Knowledge Test Version 2: Assessment of preliminary psychometric evidence. A hierarchy category of socially assistive robots' functions: Insights from older adults. Wheelchair users function and satisfaction with modified wheelchair and intermediate wheelchair services in Pakistan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1