Satisfação do usuário de tecnologia assistiva

Autores

  • Maysa Corredato Rossi Rodrigues EESC/FMRP/IQSC – USP

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33233/fb.v11i4.1414

Resumo

É importante para a prática clí­nica da equipe multidisciplinar que prescreve e desenvolve tecnologia assistiva (TA) considerar a percepção do usuário sobre o dispositivo e os fatores que contribuem para seu uso. Com o objetivo de identifi car e conhecer os instrumentos que avaliam a satisfação dos usuários de tecnologia assistiva, foi realizado um trabalho de revisão de literatura em artigos publicados no perí­odo de janeiro de 2005 a abril de 2009, a partir da consulta às bases de dados internacionais Pubmed, Scielo e Lilacs, utilizando os descritores tecnologia assistiva, equipamentos de auto-ajuda, satisfação do paciente e satisfação do usuário. Foram encontrados 56 artigos, sendo 29 incluí­dos e o restante não preencheu os requisitos necessários do estudo. Os resultados encontraram diferentes instrumentos para avaliação da satisfação do usuário de TA, padronizados e não padronizados, porém nenhum dos instrumentos encontrados está validado para o idioma e cultura brasileira. Conclui-se que conhecer a satisfação do usuário sobre o uso da tecnologia assistiva torna-se importante para otimizar seu uso e evitar o abandono.

Palavras-chave: equipamentos de auto-ajuda, satisfação dos consumidores, satisfação do paciente.

Biografia do Autor

Maysa Corredato Rossi Rodrigues, EESC/FMRP/IQSC – USP

Mestrandos do Programa de Pós-Graduação Interunidades em Bioengenharia EESC/FMRP/IQSC – USP

Referências

Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia (MCT). Tecnologia assistiva [online]. [citado 2009 Jun 5]. Disponível em URL: http://www.mct.gov.br

Waldron D, Layton N. Hard and soft assistive technologies: Defining roles for clinicians. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 2008;55:61-4.

Organização Mundial de Saúde (OMS)/Organização Panamericana de Saúde (OPAS). CIF - classificação internacional de funcionalidade, incapacidade e saúde. São Paulo: EDUSP; 2003.

Scherer M. The study of assistive technology outcomes in the United States. In: Miesenberger K, Klaus J, Zagler W, eds. Computers helping people with needs. Heidelberg: Springer Berling; 2002. p.131-42.

DeRosier R, Farber RS. Speech recognition software as an assistive device: a pilot study of user satisfaction and psychosocial impact. Work 2005;25(2):125-34.

Chan SC, Chan AP. The validity and applicability of the Chinese version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology for people with spinal cord injury. Assist Technol 2006;18(1):25-33.

Dieruf K, Ewer L, Boninger D. The natural-fit handrim: factors related to improvement in symptoms and function in wheelchair users. J Spinal Cord Med 2008;31(5):578-85.

Ding D, Souza A, Cooper RA, Fitzgerald SG, Cooper R, Kelleher A. Boninger ML. A preliminary study on the impact of pushrim-activated power-assist wheelchairs among individuals with tetraplegia. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2008;87(10):821-9.

De Boer IG, Peeters AJ, Ronday HK, Mertens BJ, Huizinga TW, Vliet Vlieland TP. Assistive devices: usage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 2009;28(2):119-28.

De San Miguel K, Lewin G. Personal emergency alarms: what impact do they have on older people's lives? Australas J Ageing 2008;27(2):103-5.

Wilber ST, Burger B, Gerson LW, Blanda M. Chairs reduce pain from gurneys in older emergency department patients: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med 2005;12(2):119-23.

Dijcks BP, Wessels RD, Vlieger SL, Post MW. KWAZO, a new instrument to assess the quality of service delivery in assistive technology provision. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28(15):909-14.

Vincent C, Reinharz D, Deaudelin I, Garceau M, Talbot LR. Public telesurveillance service for frail elderly living at home, outcomes and cost evolution: a quasi experimental design with two follow-ups. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:41.

Ryan SE, Campbell KA, Rigby PJ. Reliability of the family impact of assistive technology scale for families of young children with cerebral palsy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88(11):1436-40.

Sawatzky B, Denison I, Langrish S, Richardson S, Hiller K, Slobogean B. The segway personal transporter as an alternative mobility device for people with disabilities: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88(11):1423-8.

Crane BA, Holm MB, Hobson D, Cooper RA, Reed MP. A dynamic seating intervention for wheelchair seating discomfort. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2007;86(12):988-93.

Armstrong W, Reisinger KD, Smith WK. Evaluation of CIR-whirlwind wheelchair and service provision in Afghanistan. Disabil Rehabil 2007;29(11-12):935-48.

Chisolm TH, Noe CM, McArdle R, Abrams H. Evidence for the use of hearing assistive technology by adults: the role of the FM system. Trends Amplif 2007;11(2):73-89.

Harkins J, Tucker P. An internet survey of individuals with hearing loss regarding assistive listening devices. Trends Amplif 2007;11(2):91-100.

Chan SC, Chan AP. User satisfaction, community participation and quality of life among Chinese wheelchair users with spinal cord injury: a preliminary study. Occup Ther Int 2007;14(3):123-43.

Laffont I, Dumas C, Pozzi D, Ruquet M, Tissier AC, Lofaso F, Dizien O. Home trials of a speech synthesizer in severe dysarthria: patterns of use, satisfaction and utility of word prediction., J Rehabil Med 2007;39(5):399-404.

Hoenig H, Pieper C, Branch LG, Cohen HJ. Effect of motorized scooters on physical performance and mobility: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88(3):279-86.

Courtney KL. Privacy and senior willingness to adopt smart home information technology in residential care facilities. Methods Inf Med 2008;47(1):76-81.

Happ MB, Roesch TK, Kagan SH. Patient communication following head and neck cancer surgery: a pilot study using electronic speech-generating devices. Oncol Nurs Forum 2005;32(6):1179-87.

Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Campodonico F, Piazzolla G, Scalini L, Oliva D. Impact of favorite stimuli automatically delivered on step responses of persons with multiple disabilities during their use of walker devices. Res Dev Disabil 2005;26(1):71-6.

Mukherjee G, Samanta A. Wheelchair charity: a useless benevolence in community-based rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27(10):591-6.

Algood SD, Cooper RA, Fitzgerald SG, Cooper R, Boninger ML. Effect of a pushrim-activated power-assist wheelchair on the functional capabilities of persons with tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:380-6.

Turpin G, Armstrong J, Frost P, Fine B, Ward C, Pinnington L. Evaluation of alternative computer input devices used by people with disabilities. J Med Eng Technol 2005;29(3):119-29.

Shields RK, Dudley-Javoroski S. Monitoring standing wheelchair use after spinal cord injury: a case report. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27(3):142-6.

Spicer J, Schmidt R, Ward CD, Pinnington LL. Evaluation of text telephones designed for people with impaired hearing or speech. J Med Eng Technol 2005;29(3):137-44.

Evans S, Frank AO, Neophytou C, Souza L. Older adults' use of, and satisfaction with, electric powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs. Age Ageing 2007;36(4):431-5.

Evans S, Neophytou C, Souza L, Frank AO. Young people's experiences using electric powered indoor - outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOCs): potential for enhancing users' development? Disabil Rehabil 2007;29(16):1281-94.

Meiser MJ, McEwen IR. Lightweight and ultralight wheelchairs: propulsion and preferences of two young children with spina bifida. Pediatr Phys Ther 2007;19(3):245-53.

Cooney M, Walsh D, Gannon S. An evaluation of the taxi service available to wheelchair users. Ir Med J 2007;100(6):498-500.

Fitzgerald SG, Collins DM, Cooper RA, Tolerico M, Kelleher A, Hunt P, et al. Issues in maintenance and repairs of wheelchairs: A pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005;42(6):853-62.

Esperidião M, Trad LAB. Avaliação de satisfação de usuários. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva 2005;10:303-12.

Downloads

Publicado

2017-12-09