Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T02:05:41.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Technology and medicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2009

By
Jeffrey W. Jutai ,
Sherry Coulson  and
Elizabeth Russell-Minda
Edited by
Yair Amichai-Hamburger
Yair Amichai-Hamburger
Affiliation:
Sammy Ofer School of Communications, Interdisciplinary Center, Israel
Get access

Summary

Medical technology in the broadest sense refers to the diagnostic or therapeutic application of science and technology to improve the management of health conditions, and describes a vast array of devices and techniques. Technologies may be behavioral, biological, educational, electronic, mechanical, or pharmacological, or other methods to increase life span and/or improve the quality of life. It may seem pointless to make a sweeping generalization about the impact of medical technology on well-being given this wide range of technologies and different purposes for which they were created. Nonetheless, as it is generally assumed that virtually every form of medical technology has a positive impact on quality of life and well-being, it is important to analyze this assumption critically.

This chapter begins by examining how the relationship between technology and health is conceptualized and therefore how effectively it might be researched. It then examines the research evidence for impact on quality of life and well-being of technologies to assist mobility and vision for individuals with disabilities. It concludes with recommendations on how assistive technologies might be better researched and developed to enhance well-being.

Relevant constructs

Well-being and related constructs of quality of life and psychological functioning are part of a constellation that makes up the human experience with technology and so may be inseparable. There is no universally accepted definition of quality of life (QoL) but some approaches to definition lend themselves to measuring the impact of technology better than others.

Type
Chapter
Information
Technology and Psychological Well-being , pp. 206 - 226
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

,Abledata. (2008). Web site. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from www.Abledata.com.
,Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Technology Assessment Program. (2004). Vision Rehabilitation for Elderly Individuals with Low Vision or Blindness. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Technology Assessment Program. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from www.cms.hhs.gov/InfoExchange/Downloads/RTCvisionrehab.pdf.Google Scholar
Agree, E. (1999). The influence of personal care and assistive devices on the measurement of disability. Social Science & Medicine, 48, 427–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agree, E. M., and Freedman, V. A. (2000). Incorporating assistive devices into community-based long-term care: An analysis of the potential for substitution and implementation. Journal of Aging and Health, 12, 426–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrose-Zaken, G. (2005). Knowledge of and preferences for long cane components: A qualitative and quantitative study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99, 633–645.Google Scholar
Bateni, H., and Maki, B. E. (2005). Assistive devices for balance and mobility: Benefits, demands and adverse consequences. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 134–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berzon, R., Hays, R. D., and Shumaker, S. A. (1993). International use, application and performance of health-related quality of life instruments. Quality of Life Research, 2, 367–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowers, A. R., Apfelbaum, D. H., and Peli, E. (2005). Bioptic telescopes meet the needs of drivers with moderate visual acuity loss. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 46, 66–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowers, A. R., Meek, C., and Stewart, N. (2001). Illumination and reading performance in age-related macular degeneration. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 84, 139–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowling, A. (1995). Measuring Disease: A review of disease-specific quality of life measurement scales. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Brody, B. L., Williams, R. A., Thomas, R. G., Kaplan, R. M., Chu, R. M., and Brown, S. I. (1999). Age-related macular degeneration: A randomized clinical trial of a self-management intervention. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 21, 322–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunnström, G., Sörensen, S., Alsterstad, K., and Sjostrand, J. (2004). Quality of light and quality of life – the effect of lighting adaptation among people with low vision. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 24, 274–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bullimore, M. A., and Bailey, I. L. (1995). Reading and eye movements in age-related maculopathy. Optometry and Vision Science, 72, 125–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, D., and Ehrlich, N. (2005). Assistive Technology and Information Technology Use and Need by Persons with Disabilities in the United States, 2001. Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/at-use/at-use-2001.pdf.Google Scholar
Cornman, J. C., Freedman, V. A., and Agree, E. M. (2005). Measurement of assistive device use: Implications for estimates of device use and disability in late life. The Gerontologist, 45, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culham, L., Chabra, A., and Rubin, G. (2004). Clinical performance of electronic, head-mounted, low-vision devices. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 24, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dandona, L., and Dandona, R. (2006). What is the global burden of visual impairment?BMC Medicine, 4, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, A., DeSouza, L. H., and Frank, A. O. (2003). Changes in the quality of life of severely disabled people following provision of powered indoor/outdoor chairs. Disability & Rehabilitation, 25, 286–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Day, H., and Jutai, J. (1996). Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: The PIADS. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 9, 159–168.Google Scholar
Day, H., Jutai, J., and Campbell, K. A. (2002). Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: Lessons learned and the road ahead. Disability & Rehabilitation, 24, 31–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., and Ska, B. (2000). Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (Quest 2.0): An outcome measure for assistive technology devices. Webster, NY: Institute for Matching Person and Technology.Google Scholar
Devitt, R., Chau, B., and Jutai, J. W. (2003). The effect of wheelchair use on the quality of life of persons with Multiple Sclerosis. Occupational Therapy Practice and Research, 17, 63–79.Google Scholar
Dharne, M., Lenker, J., Harris, F., and Sprigle, S. (2006). Content Validity of Assistive Technology Outcome Measure (ATOM), Version 2.0. Unpublished manuscript.
Eklund, K., Sonn, U., and Dahlin-Ivanoff, S. (2004). Long-term evaluation of a health education programme for elderly persons with visual impairment: A randomized study. Disability & Rehabilitation, 26, 401–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eldred, K. B. (1992). Optimal illumination for reading in patients with age-related maculopathy. Optometry and Vision Science, 69, 46–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finlayson, M., Guglielmello, L., and Liefer, K. (2001). Describing and predicting the possession of assistive devices among persons with multiple sclerosis. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 545–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzpatrick, R., Fletcher, A., Gore, S., Jones, D., Spiegelhalter, D., and Cox, D. (1992). Quality of life measures in health care. I: Applications and issues in assessment. BMJ, 305, 1074–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, H. L., Gerry, E., Johnson, M. H., and Tennant, A. (2001). Health status and quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis. Disability & Rehabilitation, 23, 516–521.Google ScholarPubMed
Fosse, P., and Valberg, A. (2004). Lighting needs and lighting comfort during reading with age-related macular degeneration. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98, 389–409.Google Scholar
Fuhrer, M. J. (2000). Subjectifying quality of life as a medical rehabilitation outcome. Disability & Rehabilitation, 22, 481–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuhrer, M., Jutai, J. W., Scherer, M. J., and DeRuyter, F. (2003). A framework for the conceptual modeling of assistive technology outcomes. Disability & Rehabilitation, 25, 1243–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gitlin, L. N. (2002). Assistive technology in the home and community for older people: Psychological and social considerations. In Scherer, M. J. (Ed.), Assistive Technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation (pp. 109–122). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gitlin, L. N., Luborsky, M. R., and Schemm, R. L. (1998). Emerging concerns of older stroke patients about assistive device use. Gerontologist, 38(2), 169–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gitlin, L. N., Mann, W., Tomita, M., and Marcus, S. M. (2001). Factors associated with home environmental problems among community living older people. Disability & Rehabilitation, 23, 777–787.Google ScholarPubMed
Gitlin, L. N., Schemm, R. L., Landsberg, L., and Burgh, D. (1996). Factors predicting assistive device use in the home by older people following rehabilitation. Journal of Aging and Health, 8, 554–575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodrich, G. L., and Kirby, J. (2001). A comparison of patient reading performance and preference: Optical devices, handheld CCTV (Innoventions Magni-Cam), or stand-mounted CCTV (Optelec Clearview or TSI Genie). Optometry, 72, 519–528.Google Scholar
Gryfe, P., and Jutai, J. (1998). Assistive technologies: Clients' perceptions of impact on quality of life. Rehabilitation and Community Care Management, 7, 26–30.Google Scholar
Harper, R., Doorduyn, K., Reeves, B., and Slater, L. (1999). Evaluating the outcomes of low vision rehabilitation. Ophthalmic Physiological Optics, 19, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hooper, P., Jutai, J. W., Strong, G., and Russell-Minda, E. (2008). Age-related macular degeneration and low vision rehabilitation: A systematic review. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology, 43(2), 180–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Institute of Medicine (IOM). (2007). The Future of Disability in America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Jutai, J. (1999). Quality of life impact of assistive technology. Rehabilitation Engineering, 14, 2–7.Google Scholar
Jutai, J. (2002). Occupational therapy and assistive technology: The research challenge. The Israel Journal of Occupational Therapy, 11, E3–E22.Google Scholar
Jutai, J., Coulson, S., Teasell, R., Bayley, M., Garland, J., Mayo, N., and Wood-Dauphinee, S. (2007). Mobility assistive device utilization in a prospective study of patients with first-ever stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88, 1268–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jutai, J., and Day, H. (2002). Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technology and Disability, 14, 107–111.Google Scholar
Jutai, J., Day, H., Woolrich, W., and Strong, G. (2003). The predictability of retention and discontinuation of contact lenses. Optometry, 74, 299–307.Google ScholarPubMed
Jutai, J., Fuhrer, M. J., Demers, L., Scherer, M. J., and DeRuyter, F. (2005). Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 84, 294–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jutai, J., and Gryfe, P. (1998). Impacts of assistive technology on clients with ALS. Proceedings from the RESNA '98 Annual Conference (pp. 54–65). Arlington, VA: RESNA Press.Google Scholar
Jutai, J., Hartley, M., Gryfe, P., and Day, H. (2001). Psychosocial impact of wheelchairs on elderly individuals who have a physical disability. Paper presented at International Conference on Technology and Aging, Toronto, September 12–14.
Jutai, J., Strong, G., and Russell-Minda, E. (2008). Vision Rehabilitation Evidence-based Review: Assistive technologies for low vision and blindness. The University of Western Ontario and CNIB. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from www.piads.ca/112/vrebr.htm.Google Scholar
LaGrow, S. J. (1986). Assessing optimal illumination for visual response accuracy in visually impaired adults. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 80, 888–895.Google Scholar
Lenker, J. A., Scherer, M. J., Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., and DeRuyter, F. (2005). Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assistive Technology, 17, 7–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovie-Kitchin, J. E., Bowman, K. J., and Farmer, E. J. (1983). Technical note: Domestic lighting requirements for elderly patients. Australian Journal of Optometry, 66, 93–97.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C., Hurren, D., Tomita, M., and Charvat, B. (1995). Assistive devices for home-based older stroke survivors. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 10, 75–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, W. C., Ottenbacher, K. J., Fraas, L., Tomita, M., and Granger, C. V. (1999). Effectiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintaining independence and reducing home care costs for frail elderly: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Family Medicine, 8, 210–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayo, N. E. (1996). Hospitalization and case-fatality rates for stroke in Canada from 1982 through 1991. The Canadian collaborative study group of stroke hospitalization. Stroke, 27, 1215–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, N. E., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Cote, R., Durcan, L., and Carlton, J. (2002). Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 1035–1042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCabe, P., Nason, F., Demers, T. P., Friedman, D., and Seddon, J. M. (2000). Evaluating the effectiveness of a vision rehabilitation intervention using an objective and subjective measure of functional performance. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 7, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McWilliam, C. L., Diehl-Jones, W. L., Jutai, J. W., and Tadrissi, S. (2000). Care delivery approaches and seniors' independence. Canadian Journal on Aging, 19, 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odding, E., Valkenburg, H. A., Stam, H. J., and Hofman, A. (2001). Determinants of locomotor disability in people aged 55 years and over: The Rotterdam study. European Journal of Epidemiology, 17, 1033–1041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohnabe, H. (2006). Current trends in rehabilitation engineering in Japan. Assistive Technology, 18, 220–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pankow, L., Luchins, D., Studebaker, J., and Chettleburgh, D. (2004). Evaluation of a vision rehabilitation program for older adults with visual impairment. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 20, 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pape, L.-B. T., Kim, J., and Weiner, B. (2002). The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: A review of personal factors. Disability & Rehabilitation, 24(1/2/3), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, D. L., and Erickson, P. (1993). Health Status and Health Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. C., Wolffsohn, J. S., Rubinstein, M., and Lowe, J. (2003). Benefits of electronic vision enhancement systems (EVES) for the visually impaired. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 136, 1129–1135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, B., and Zhao, H. (1993). Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology, 5, 36–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reeves, B. C., Harper, R. A., and Russell, W. B. (2004). Enhanced low vision rehabilitation for people with age related macular degeneration: A randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 88, 1443–1449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renwick, R., Brown, I., and Raphael, D. (1994). Quality of life: Linking a conceptual approach to service provision. Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 3, 32–44.Google Scholar
Rodgers, M. D., and Emerson, R. W. (2005). Human factor analysis of long cane design: Weight and length. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99, 622–632.Google Scholar
Roelands, M., Oost, P., Depoorter, A. M., and Buysse, A. (2002). A social-cognitive model to predict the use of assistive devices for mobility and self-care in elderly people. The Gerontologist, 42, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scanlan, J. M., and Cuddeford, J. E. (2004). Low vision rehabilitation: A comparison of traditional and extended teaching programs. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98, 601–611.Google Scholar
Scherer, M. J. (1996). Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disability & Rehabilitation, 18, 439–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scherer, M. J., Sax, C., Vanbiervliet, A., Cuschman, L. A., and Scherer, J. V. (2005). Predictors of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disability & Rehabilitation, 27, 1321–1331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siekierska, E., LaBelle, R., Brunet, L., McCurdy, B., Pulsifer, P., Rieger, M. K., and O'Neil, L. (2003). Enhancing spatial learning and mobility training of visually impaired people – a technical paper on the Internet-based tactile and audio-tactile mapping. The Canadian Geographer, 47, 480–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloan, L. L., Habel, A., and Feiock, K. (1973). High illumination as an auxiliary reading aid in diseases of the macula. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 76, 745–757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, H. J., Dickinson, C. M., Cacho, I., Reeves, B. C., and Harper, R. A. (2005). A randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of prism spectacles for patients with age-related macular degeneration. Archives of Ophthalmology, 123, 1042–1050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strong, G., Jutai, J. W., Bevers, P., Hartley, M., and Plotkin, A. (2003). The psychosocial impact of closed-circuit television low vision aids. Visual Impairment Research, 5, 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szlyk, J. P., Seiple, W., Laderman, D. J., Kelsch, R., Stelmack, J., and McMahon, T. (2000). Measuring the effectiveness of bioptic telescopes for persons with central vision loss. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 37, 101–108.Google ScholarPubMed
,US Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.html.
Veraart, C., Duret, F., Brelen, M., Oozeer, M., and Delbeke, J. (2004). Vision rehabilitation in the case of blindness. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 1, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verbrugge, L., Rennert, C., and Madans, J. (1997). The greater efficacy of personal and equipment assistance in reducing disability. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 384–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Virgili, G., and Acosta, R. (2006). Reading aids for adults with low vision. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4, Art. No. CD003303.CrossRef
Virgili, G., and Rubin, G. (2006). Orientation and mobility training for adults with low vision. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, Art. No. CD003925.CrossRef
Wilson, D. J. (2005). Braces, wheelchairs, and iron lungs: The paralyzed body and the machinery of rehabilitation in the polio epidemics. Journal of Medical Humanities, 26(2–3), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
,World Health Organization. (2003). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems: 10th revision. Current version. Version for 2003. Chapter VII. H54. Blindness and low vision. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs282/en.
Wressle, E., and Samuelsson, K. (2004). User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 11, 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×