Louise Nygård1, Anders Kottorp, Lena Rosenberg. 1. Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society (NVS), Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to investigate how and when an evaluation of perceived difficulty in use of everyday technology (Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire, ETUQ) could be used in clinical occupational therapy. METHOD: Eight focus-group interviews were undertaken with a total of 42 participants (occupational therapists), and data were analysed with a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: The findings are presented in four main categories, including (i) appropriate purposes and contexts for using ETUQ, (ii) standardization versus individual flexibility, (iii) approaching everyday technology use and occupation as one whole, and (iv) synthesizing and documentation. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the participants considered ability to use technology to be an important topic for occupational therapy, particularly in investigations of clients with subtle disabilities and in connection with discharge from hospital - but not in inpatient care. They had different views on how to integrate ETUQ with evaluations of occupational performance, and new ideas on how information about clients' ability to use technology could be utilized in interventions. They held standardized evaluations in high regard, but a paradox appeared in that many of them would use ETUQ in a non-standardized way, while simultaneously asking for a standardized output to be used in clients' medical files and to guide interventions.
OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to investigate how and when an evaluation of perceived difficulty in use of everyday technology (Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire, ETUQ) could be used in clinical occupational therapy. METHOD: Eight focus-group interviews were undertaken with a total of 42 participants (occupational therapists), and data were analysed with a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: The findings are presented in four main categories, including (i) appropriate purposes and contexts for using ETUQ, (ii) standardization versus individual flexibility, (iii) approaching everyday technology use and occupation as one whole, and (iv) synthesizing and documentation. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the participants considered ability to use technology to be an important topic for occupational therapy, particularly in investigations of clients with subtle disabilities and in connection with discharge from hospital - but not in inpatient care. They had different views on how to integrate ETUQ with evaluations of occupational performance, and new ideas on how information about clients' ability to use technology could be utilized in interventions. They held standardized evaluations in high regard, but a paradox appeared in that many of them would use ETUQ in a non-standardized way, while simultaneously asking for a standardized output to be used in clients' medical files and to guide interventions.