1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«The purpose of the present study was to conduct a user-centered needs assessment to inform the development of an Internet-based intervention offering remote monitoring, support, and training to older adults and their family caregivers after the provision of AT [assistive technology].» (p. 30)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
Trente entrevues «ont été menées avec des aînés usagers d’ATs, des proches aidants et d’autres détenteurs d’enjeux.» (p. i) More specifically, «five AT users and five family caregivers who were not related. Seven out of 10 AT users (n=3) and family caregivers (n=4) were living in the same household as their care recipient/main family caregiver.» (p. 33-34) Moreover, «[c]linical research coordinators of three rehabilitation centers in the Montreal metropolitan area in Quebec, Canada identified all AT-users, family caregivers and clinicians as well as four of the decision makers. Other participants were identified through the project steering committee.» (p. 32)

Instruments :
Guide d’entretien semi-directif

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé

«Les participants considèrent l’obtention d’une AT comme un processus cyclique. Les besoins reliés aux ATs des dyades usager d’ATs/proche aidant portent sur l’information, l’accès, l’adéquation personne-contexte, l’entraînement et le soutien, et ce à différents moments clés avant et après l’obtention d’une AT. Les participants ont identifié divers bénéfices potentiels de l’intervention proposée, intégrant un suivi systématisé et du soutien humain, sur le sentiment d’efficacité personnelle des utilisateurs ainsi que sur l’accessibilité et l’efficience des services de réadaptation. Ils ont également identifié des barrières potentielles à son implantation et à sa pérennité.» (p. i) Regarding family caregivers’ needs, most «participants indicated that the primary need of user/family caregiver dyads towards AT is access to information. [...] However, most AT users and family caregivers had little contact with peers or healthcare professionals and had to rely on their own resourcefulness, or AT vendors, to compensate for the lack of easily accessible information about AT. Healthcare professionals were not always better informed than their clients. They also needed to be familiarized with ATs and funding programs to adequately counsel their clients.» (p. 36) Moreover, «[p]articipants indicated that wait lists for public funded programs significantly delayed AT procurement. In the meantime, AT-users and family caregivers continued to use inappropriate methods or equipment, which in some cases put their safety at risk and limited their social participation.» (p. 37)