Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Making use of research: Clinical views on an evaluation of everyday technology use
Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.
Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.
Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1727-369X
2015 (English)In: Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, ISSN 1103-8128, E-ISSN 1651-2014, Vol. 22, no 1, p. 24-32Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2015. Vol. 22, no 1, p. 24-32
Keywords [en]
Assessment, Evidence-based practice, IADL, ICT, Knowledge dissemination, Knowledge translation, Occupational therapy, daily life activity, devices, health personnel attitude, human, information dissemination, information processing, microcomputer, mobile phone, questionnaire, technology, Activities of Daily Living, Attitude of Health Personnel, Cell Phones, Focus Groups, Humans, Microcomputers, Questionnaires, Technology Transfer
National Category
Occupational Therapy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-59584DOI: 10.3109/11038128.2014.953202ISI: 000346705800003PubMedID: 25327845Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84919647878OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-59584DiVA, id: diva2:1733266
Available from: 2023-02-01 Created: 2023-02-01 Last updated: 2023-02-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Rosenberg, Lena

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Rosenberg, Lena
In the same journal
Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy
Occupational Therapy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 7 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf