Marcus J Fuhrer1. 1. National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. fuhrerm@mail.nih.gov
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to highlight the contributions that complementary efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness studies can make to assessing the outcomes of assistive technology interventions for enhancing mobility. METHOD: The terms, 'assistive technology outcomes research' and 'assistive technology interventions', are defined. Several bases are examined for the shortage of outcomes research pertaining to mobility-related assistive technology interventions. Three presuppositions are described for the research strategy of interlocking studies being recommended. They are assigning priority to evaluating both recently developed assistive technologies and ones that have long been available, acknowledging the complexity of assistive technology as an intervention, and appreciating the trade-offs necessary for strengthening studies' internal and external validity. Some key study preparations are considered, including treatment theory, treatment specification, and the selection of outcome domains and measures. The essential features of efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness studies are outlined, and their interdependence is stressed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: To assess the outcomes of assistive technology interventions for mobility in ways that are both methodologically sound and relevant to stakeholder needs, a research strategy is required involving mutually reinforcing efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness studies. Collaborative arrangements and funding methods are discussed for fostering the needed research.
PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to highlight the contributions that complementary efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness studies can make to assessing the outcomes of assistive technology interventions for enhancing mobility. METHOD: The terms, 'assistive technology outcomes research' and 'assistive technology interventions', are defined. Several bases are examined for the shortage of outcomes research pertaining to mobility-related assistive technology interventions. Three presuppositions are described for the research strategy of interlocking studies being recommended. They are assigning priority to evaluating both recently developed assistive technologies and ones that have long been available, acknowledging the complexity of assistive technology as an intervention, and appreciating the trade-offs necessary for strengthening studies' internal and external validity. Some key study preparations are considered, including treatment theory, treatment specification, and the selection of outcome domains and measures. The essential features of efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness studies are outlined, and their interdependence is stressed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: To assess the outcomes of assistive technology interventions for mobility in ways that are both methodologically sound and relevant to stakeholder needs, a research strategy is required involving mutually reinforcing efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness studies. Collaborative arrangements and funding methods are discussed for fostering the needed research.
Authors: David J Reinkensmeyer; Sarah Blackstone; Cathy Bodine; John Brabyn; David Brienza; Kevin Caves; Frank DeRuyter; Edmund Durfee; Stefania Fatone; Geoff Fernie; Steven Gard; Patricia Karg; Todd A Kuiken; Gerald F Harris; Mike Jones; Yue Li; Jordana Maisel; Michael McCue; Michelle A Meade; Helena Mitchell; Tracy L Mitzner; James L Patton; Philip S Requejo; James H Rimmer; Wendy A Rogers; W Zev Rymer; Jon A Sanford; Lawrence Schneider; Levin Sliker; Stephen Sprigle; Aaron Steinfeld; Edward Steinfeld; Gregg Vanderheiden; Carolee Winstein; Li-Qun Zhang; Thomas Corfman Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Lisa Ekstam; Gunilla Carlsson; Carlos Chiatti; Maria H Nilsson; Agneta Malmgren Fänge Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-11-29 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Thais Pousada; Jessica Garabal-Barbeira; Cristina Martínez; Betania Groba; Laura Nieto-Riveiro; Javier Pereira Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 3.390