Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
Volume 2013, Article ID 926858, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/926858
Research Article

Evaluation of Treatment in the Smart Home IRIS in terms of Functional Independence and Occupational Performance and Satisfaction

1University Rehabilitation Institute, Republic of Slovenia, Linhartova 51, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2Faculty of Health, Education and Society, University of Plymouth, SF18, Peninsula Allied Health Centre, College of St Mark & St John, Plymouth, Devon PL6 8BH, UK

Received 5 August 2013; Revised 2 October 2013; Accepted 9 October 2013

Academic Editor: Imre Cikajlo

Copyright © 2013 Julija Ocepek et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. A. Zupan, R. Cugelj, and F. Hočevar, “Dom IRIS Smart Home,” Quark Magazine, pp. 132–144, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  2. M. Law, S. Baptiste, A. Carswell, M. A. McColl, H. Polatajko, and N. Pollock, The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, CAOT Publications ACE, Ottawa, Canada, 4th edition, 2005.
  3. J. Ocepek, M. Jenko, G. Vidmar, and A. Zupan, “Role of smart home IRIS in rehabilitation in Slovenia—findings from the user survey,” Informatica Medica Slovenica, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1–5, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  4. C. V. Granger and G. E. Gresham, Functional Assessment in Rehabilitation Medicine, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, Md, USA, 1984.
  5. T. Sumsion, Ed., Client-Centred Practice in Occupational Therapy. A Guide to Implementation, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, UK, 2nd edition, 2006.
  6. A. Carswell, M. A. McColl, S. Baptiste, M. Law, H. Polatajko, and N. Pollock, “The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: a research and clinical literature review,” Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 210–222, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. A. Atwal, S. Owen, and R. Davies, “Struggling for occupational satisfaction: older people in care homes,” British Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 118–124, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. T. Lyons and P. Raghavendra, “Therapists’ view on the usability of Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for an early intervention group by a multi-disciplinary team: a pilot study,” Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, vol. 51, no. 2, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  9. C. Chesworth, R. Duffy, J. Hodnett, and A. Knight, “Measuring clinical effectiveness in mental health: is the Canadian occupational performance an appropriate measure?” British Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 30–34, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. E. H. C. Cup, W. J. M. Scholte op Reimer, M. C. E. Thijssen, and M. A. H. van Kuyk-Minis, “Reliability and validity of the Canadian occupational performance measure in stroke patients,” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 402–409, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. A.-W. Pan, L. Chung, and G. Hsin-Hwei, “Reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for clients with psychiatric disorders in Taiwan,” Occupational Therapy International, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 269–277, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. L. Sewell and S. J. Singh, “The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: is it a reliable measure in clients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?” British Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 305–310, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. L. Carpenter, G. A. Baker, and B. Tyldesley, “The use of the Canadian occupational performance measure as an outcome of a pain management program,” Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 16–22, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. G. Boyer, R. Hachey, and C. Mercier, “Perceptions of occupational performance and subjective quality of life in persons with severe mental illness,” Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1–15, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. M. A. McColl, M. Paterson, D. Davies, L. Doubt, and M. Law, “Validity and community utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure,” Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 22–29, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. I. C. J. M. Eyssen, A. Beelen, C. Dedding, M. Cardol, and J. Dekker, “The reproducibility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure,” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 888–894, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. M. E. Cohen and R. J. Marino, “The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 81, no. 12, pp. S21–S29, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. M. Invernizzi, S. Carda, P. Milani et al., “Development and validation of the Italian version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure III,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 32, no. 14, pp. 1194–1203, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. M. G. Stineman, R. N. Ross, S. V. Williams, J. E. Goin, and C. V. Granger, “A functional diagnostic complexity index for rehabilitation medicine: measuring the influence of many diagnoses on functional independence and resource use,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 549–557, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. Y. Young, M.-Y. Fan, J. R. Hebel, and C. Boult, “Concurrent validity of administering the functional independence measure (FIM) instrument by interview,” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 88, no. 9, pp. 766–770, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. J. M. Linacre, A. W. Heinemann, B. D. Wright, C. V. Granger, and B. B. Hamilton, “The structure and stability of the functional independence measure,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 127–132, 1994. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. “Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia,” Rapid Reports 15, 2010, http://www.stat.si/doc/statinf/05-si-007-1001.pdf.
  23. M. F. Folstein, S. E. Folstein, and P. R. McHugh, “Mini-Mental State: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician,” Journal of Psychiatric Research, vol. 12, pp. 189–198, 1975. View at Google Scholar
  24. I.-L. Boman, K. Tham, A. Granqvist, A. Bartfai, and H. Hemmingsson, “Using electronic aids to daily living after acquired brain injury: a study of the learning process and the usability,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 23–33, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. J. Ripat, “Function and impact of electronic aids to daily living for experienced users,” Technology and Disability, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 79–87, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. L. S. Petty, L. McArthur, and J. Treviranus, “Clinical report: use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in vision technology,” Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 309–312, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. D. J. Wilson, J. M. Mitchell, B. J. Kemp, R. H. Adkins, and W. Mann, “Effects of assistive technology on functional decline in people aging with a disability,” Assistive Technology, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 208–217, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. I. G. de Boer, A. Peeters, H. K. Ronday, B. J. A. Mertens, F. C. Breedveld, and T. P. M. Vliet Vlieland, “The usage of functional wrist orthoses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 286–295, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. T. Wielandt, K. McKenna, L. Tooth, and J. Strong, “Factors that predict the post-discharge use of recommended assistive technology (AT),” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 1, no. 1-2, pp. 29–40, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. L. Demers, M. Monette, M. Descent, J. Jutai, and C. Wolfson, “The psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS): translation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a Canadian-French version,” Quality of Life Research, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 583–592, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. L. Demers, R. Weiss-Lambrou, and B. Ska, “The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress,” Technology and Disability, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 101–105, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. H.-F. Mao, W.-Y. Chen, G. Yao, S.-L. Huang, C.-C. Lin, and W.-N. W. Huang, “Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): the development of the Taiwanese version,” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 412–421, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. G. Vidmar, H. Burger, Č. Marinček, and R. Cugelj, “Analysis of data on assessment with the functional independent measure at the institute for rehabilitation, Republic of Slovenia,” Informatica Medica Slovenica, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 21–32, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  34. G. Vidmar, H. Burger, and Č. Marinček, “Time trends in ability level and functional outcome of stroke and multiple sclerosis patients undergoing comprehensive rehabilitation in slovenia,” Zdravstveno Varstvo, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 24–33, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus