Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an optimized process of providing assistive technology for impaired upper extremity function:: Protocol of a prospective, quasi-experimental non-randomized study (OMARM)

U.R. Roentgen; Loek A.  van der Heide; Ingrid Kremer; H. Creemers; Merel A.  Brehm; J. Groothuis; E. Hagedoren; Ramon Daniels; Silvia Evers

doi:10.3233/TAD-210335

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an optimized process of providing assistive technology for impaired upper extremity function: Protocol of a prospective, quasi-experimental non-randomized study (OMARM)

U.R. Roentgen, Loek A. van der Heide, Ingrid Kremer^*, H. Creemers, Merel A. Brehm, J. Groothuis, E. Hagedoren, Ramon Daniels, Silvia Evers

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Impaired upper extremity function due to muscle paresis or paralysis has a major impact on independent living
and quality of life (QoL). Assistive technology (AT) for upper extremity function (i.e. dynamic arm supports and robotic arms) can
increase a client’s independence. Previous studies revealed that clients often use AT not to their full potential, due to suboptimal
provision of these devices in usual care.

OBJECTIVE: To optimize the process of providing AT for impaired upper extremity function and to evaluate its (cost-)
effectiveness compared with care as usual.

METHODS: Development of a protocol to guide the AT provision process in an optimized way according to generic Dutch
guidelines; a quasi-experimental study with non-randomized, consecutive inclusion of a control group (n = 48) receiving care as
usual and of an intervention group (optimized provision process) (n = 48); and a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis from
societal perspective will be performed. The primary outcome is clients’ satisfaction with the AT and related services, measured
with the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with AT (Dutch version; D-QUEST). Secondary outcomes comprise complaints
of the upper extremity, restrictions in activities, QoL, medical consumption and societal cost. Measurements are taken at baseline
and at 3, 6 and 9 months follow-up.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	207-220
Number of pages	14
Journal	Technology and Disability
Volume	33
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-210335
Publication status	Published - Aug 2021

Access to Document

10.3233/TAD-210335Licence: Free access - publisher

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an optimized process of providing assistive technology for impaired upper extremity function: Protocol of a prospective, quasi-experimental non-randomized study (OMARM)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

Roentgen, U. R., van der Heide, L. A., Kremer, I., Creemers, H., Brehm, M. A., Groothuis, J., Hagedoren, E., Daniels, R., & Evers, S. (2021). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an optimized process of providing assistive technology for impaired upper extremity function: Protocol of a prospective, quasi-experimental non-randomized study (OMARM). Technology and Disability, 33(3), 207-220. https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-210335

@article{f55f942d146b41b38343afe3cdc94636,

title = "Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an optimized process of providing assistive technology for impaired upper extremity function:: Protocol of a prospective, quasi-experimental non-randomized study (OMARM)",

abstract = "BACKGROUND: Impaired upper extremity function due to muscle paresis or paralysis has a major impact on independent livingand quality of life (QoL). Assistive technology (AT) for upper extremity function (i.e. dynamic arm supports and robotic arms) canincrease a client{\textquoteright}s independence. Previous studies revealed that clients often use AT not to their full potential, due to suboptimalprovision of these devices in usual care.OBJECTIVE: To optimize the process of providing AT for impaired upper extremity function and to evaluate its (cost-)effectiveness compared with care as usual.METHODS: Development of a protocol to guide the AT provision process in an optimized way according to generic Dutchguidelines; a quasi-experimental study with non-randomized, consecutive inclusion of a control group (n = 48) receiving care asusual and of an intervention group (optimized provision process) (n = 48); and a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis fromsocietal perspective will be performed. The primary outcome is clients{\textquoteright} satisfaction with the AT and related services, measuredwith the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with AT (Dutch version; D-QUEST). Secondary outcomes comprise complaintsof the upper extremity, restrictions in activities, QoL, medical consumption and societal cost. Measurements are taken at baselineand at 3, 6 and 9 months follow-up.",

author = "U.R. Roentgen and {van der Heide}, {Loek A.} and Ingrid Kremer and H. Creemers and Brehm, {Merel A.} and J. Groothuis and E. Hagedoren and Ramon Daniels and Silvia Evers",

note = "Funding Information: The OMARM project has been made possible by ZonMw, the Dutch organisation that stimulates health research and innovation, grant number 853001107. The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. Funding Information: The study is funded by ZonMw, the Dutch organisation for health care research and innovation, project number 853001107. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 - The authors. Published by IOS Press.",

year = "2021",

month = aug,

doi = "10.3233/TAD-210335",

language = "English",

volume = "33",

pages = "207--220",

journal = "Technology and Disability",

issn = "1055-4181",

publisher = "IOS Press",

number = "3",

}

Roentgen, UR, van der Heide, LA, Kremer, I, Creemers, H, Brehm, MA, Groothuis, J, Hagedoren, E, Daniels, R & Evers, S 2021, 'Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an optimized process of providing assistive technology for impaired upper extremity function: Protocol of a prospective, quasi-experimental non-randomized study (OMARM)', Technology and Disability, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 207-220. https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-210335

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an optimized process of providing assistive technology for impaired upper extremity function: Protocol of a prospective, quasi-experimental non-randomized study (OMARM). / Roentgen, U.R.; van der Heide, Loek A. ; Kremer, Ingrid et al.
In: Technology and Disability, Vol. 33, No. 3, 08.2021, p. 207-220.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an optimized process of providing assistive technology for impaired upper extremity function:

T2 - Protocol of a prospective, quasi-experimental non-randomized study (OMARM)

AU - Roentgen, U.R.

AU - van der Heide, Loek A.

AU - Kremer, Ingrid

AU - Creemers, H.

AU - Brehm, Merel A.

AU - Groothuis, J.

AU - Hagedoren, E.

AU - Daniels, Ramon

AU - Evers, Silvia

N1 - Funding Information: The OMARM project has been made possible by ZonMw, the Dutch organisation that stimulates health research and innovation, grant number 853001107. The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. Funding Information: The study is funded by ZonMw, the Dutch organisation for health care research and innovation, project number 853001107. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 - The authors. Published by IOS Press.

PY - 2021/8

Y1 - 2021/8

N2 - BACKGROUND: Impaired upper extremity function due to muscle paresis or paralysis has a major impact on independent livingand quality of life (QoL). Assistive technology (AT) for upper extremity function (i.e. dynamic arm supports and robotic arms) canincrease a client’s independence. Previous studies revealed that clients often use AT not to their full potential, due to suboptimalprovision of these devices in usual care.OBJECTIVE: To optimize the process of providing AT for impaired upper extremity function and to evaluate its (cost-)effectiveness compared with care as usual.METHODS: Development of a protocol to guide the AT provision process in an optimized way according to generic Dutchguidelines; a quasi-experimental study with non-randomized, consecutive inclusion of a control group (n = 48) receiving care asusual and of an intervention group (optimized provision process) (n = 48); and a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis fromsocietal perspective will be performed. The primary outcome is clients’ satisfaction with the AT and related services, measuredwith the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with AT (Dutch version; D-QUEST). Secondary outcomes comprise complaintsof the upper extremity, restrictions in activities, QoL, medical consumption and societal cost. Measurements are taken at baselineand at 3, 6 and 9 months follow-up.

AB - BACKGROUND: Impaired upper extremity function due to muscle paresis or paralysis has a major impact on independent livingand quality of life (QoL). Assistive technology (AT) for upper extremity function (i.e. dynamic arm supports and robotic arms) canincrease a client’s independence. Previous studies revealed that clients often use AT not to their full potential, due to suboptimalprovision of these devices in usual care.OBJECTIVE: To optimize the process of providing AT for impaired upper extremity function and to evaluate its (cost-)effectiveness compared with care as usual.METHODS: Development of a protocol to guide the AT provision process in an optimized way according to generic Dutchguidelines; a quasi-experimental study with non-randomized, consecutive inclusion of a control group (n = 48) receiving care asusual and of an intervention group (optimized provision process) (n = 48); and a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis fromsocietal perspective will be performed. The primary outcome is clients’ satisfaction with the AT and related services, measuredwith the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with AT (Dutch version; D-QUEST). Secondary outcomes comprise complaintsof the upper extremity, restrictions in activities, QoL, medical consumption and societal cost. Measurements are taken at baselineand at 3, 6 and 9 months follow-up.

U2 - 10.3233/TAD-210335

DO - 10.3233/TAD-210335

M3 - Article

SN - 1055-4181

VL - 33

SP - 207

EP - 220

JO - Technology and Disability

JF - Technology and Disability

IS - 3

ER -