Advertisement

The Present and the Future of Occupational Therapy

Chapter
  • 803 Downloads

Abstract

The present and the future are often interacting in the care of older people. The cultural changes in Europe require the occupational therapy to focus on a personalized approach given the ageing population in different cultures. In this matter, loneliness and boredom are two emerging conditions, which require a specific approach to improve the quality of life of the elderly in different settings. Technology and assistive technology might represent a venue to improve the occupational therapy management of older people. Finally, the continuous evaluation of occupational therapy interventions in clinical trials is key to provide the scientific evidence for the best approach to elderly people.

Keywords

Future of occupational therapy Loneliness Ageing population/elderly Assistive technology Personalized care Evidence-based occupational therapy interventions 

References

  1. 1.
    Bolelli F. Come Ibra, Kobe, Bruce Lee. Lo sport e la costruzione del carattere. ADD Editore: Torino; 2018. 125 p.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Minarik PA, Lipson JG. Culture and nursing care: a pocket guide. 1st ed. San Francisco: Univ of California San Francisco; 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnes M. Storie di caregiver. Il senso della cura. Trento: Erickson; 2010; 240 p.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grant JS, Bartolucci AA, Elliot TR, Giger JN. Sociodemographic, physical, and psychosocial characteristics of depressed and non-depressed family caregivers of stroke survivors. Brain Inj. 2000;14(12):1089–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mosley PE, Moodie R, Dissanayaka N. Caregiver burden in Parkinson disease: a critical review of recent literature. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2017;30(5):235–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graff M, Melick MV, Thijssen M, Verstraten P, Zajec J, Fabbo A. Curare la demenza a domicilio. Indicazioni di terapia occupazionale per anziani e caregivers. 1st ed. Milan: Franco Angeli; 2015. 322 p.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin M. Boredom as an important area of inquiry for occupational therapists. Br J Occup Ther. 2009;72(1):40–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith J. It was only a tiny garden, but it helped me smile again. 2016 gennaio 16 [citato 2019 marzo 20]. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/telegraphchristmasappeal/12099804/It-was-only-a-tiny-garden-but-it-helped-me-smile-again.html.
  9. 9.
    Vodanovich SJ. Psychometric measures of boredom: a review of the literature. J Psychol. 2003;137(6):569–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salter K, Foley N, Jutai J, Bayley M, Teasell R. Assessment of community integration following traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2008;22(11):820–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demiris G, Hensel BK. Technologies for an aging society: a systematic review of “smart home” applications. Yearb Med Inform. 2008;17(1):33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brownie S, Horstmanshof L. Creating the conditions for self-fulfilment for aged care residents. Nurs Ethics. 2012;19(6):777–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cason J. Telehealth: a rapidly developing service delivery model for occupational therapy. Int J Telerehabil. 2014;6(1):29–35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kachouie R, Sedighadeli S, Khosla R, Chu M-T. Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a mixed-method systematic literature review. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2014;30(5):369–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eisma R, Dickinson A, Goodman J, Syme A, Tiwari L, Newell AF. Early user involvement in the development of information technology-related products for older people. Univers Access Inf Soc. 2004;3(2):131–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Orpwood R. Involving people with dementia in the design process: examples of iterative design. In: Dementia, design and technology. London: IOS Press; 2009. p. 79–95.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Hinder S, Procter R, Stones R. What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. Soc Sci Med. 2013;93:86–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peek STM, Wouters EJM, van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJM. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inf. 2014;83(4):235–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leorin C, Stella E, Nugent C, Cleland I, Paggetti C. The value of including people with dementia in the co-design of personalized eHealth technologies. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2019;47(3):164–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cahill S, Begley E, Faulkner JP, Hagen I. “It gives me a sense of independence” – findings from Ireland on the use and usefulness of assistive technology for people with dementia. Technol Disabil. 2007;19(2/3):133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, Cushman LA, Scherer JV. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(21):1321–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scherer MJ, Glueckauf R. Assessing the benefits of assistive technologies for activities and participation. Rehabil Psychol. 2005;50(2):132–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scherer MJ. From people-centered to person-centered services, and back again. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9(1):1–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Andrich R, Mathiassen NE, Hoogerwerf EJ, Gelderblom GJ. Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: an AAATE/EASTIN position paper. Technol Disabil. 2013;25(3):127–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Agree EM, Freedman VA. A quality-of-life scale for assistive technology: results of a pilot study of aging and technology. Phys Ther. 2011;91(12):1780–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cabrera M, Özcivelek R. ICT for independent living services [Internet]. ResearchGate. [citato 2019 marzo 26]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296412185_ICT_for_independent_living_services.
  27. 27.
    National Research Council (US) Steering Committee for the Workshop on Technology for Adaptive Aging, Pew RW, Van Hemel SB. Technology for adaptive aging (The National Academies collection: reports funded by National Institutes of Health). Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004 [citato 2019 marzo 26]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK97346/.
  28. 28.
    Zabala J, Blunt M, Carl D, Davis S, Deterding C, Foss T, et al. Quality indicators for assistive technology services in school settings. J Spec Educ Technol. 2000;15(4):25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Al-Shaqi R, Mourshed M, Rezgui Y. Progress in ambient assisted systems for independent living by the elderly. Springerplus. 2016;5:624.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Prescott TJ, Robillard JM. Robotic automation can improve the lives of people who need social care. BMJ. 2019;62:364.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Majumder S, Aghayi E, Noferesti M, Memarzadeh-Tehran H, Mondal T, Pang Z, et al. Smart homes for elderly healthcare-recent advances and research challenges. Sensors. 2017;17(11):E2496.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dorsey ER, Topol EJ. State of Telehealth. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(2):154–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Pirogowicz I. Support for e-health services among elderly primary care patients. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(8):696–704.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    ICT and ageing - European study on users, markets and technologies. Digital Single Market. [citato 2019 marzo 26]. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ict-and-ageing-european-study-users-markets-and-technologies.
  35. 35.
    Beuscher LM, Fan J, Sarkar N, Dietrich MS, Newhouse PA, Miller KF, et al. Socially assistive robots: measuring older adults’ perceptions. J Gerontol Nurs. 2017;43(12):35–43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vandemeulebroucke T, de Casterlé BD, Gastmans C. How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging Ment Health. 2018;22(2):149–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vaportzis E, Clausen MG, Gow AJ. Older adults perceptions of technology and barriers to interacting with tablet computers: a focus group study. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1687.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rust KL, Smith RO. Assistive technology in the measurement of rehabilitation and health outcomes: a review and analysis of instruments. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(10):780–93; quiz 794–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fleming R, Sum S. Empirical studies on the effectiveness of assistive technology in the care of people with dementia: a systematic review [Internet]. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2014 [citato 2019 marzo 26]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236935/.
  40. 40.
    Piau A, Campo E, Rumeau P, Vellas B, Nourhashémi F. Aging society and gerontechnology: a solution for an independent living? J Nutr Health Aging. 2014;18(1):97–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chung J, Demiris G, Thompson HJ. Ethical considerations regarding the use of smart home technologies for older adults: an integrative review. Annu Rev Nurs Res. 2016;34:155–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Emiliani PL. Assistive technology (AT) versus mainstream technology (MST): the research perspective. Technol Disabil. 2006;18(1):19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Foley A, Ferri BA. Technology for people, not disabilities: ensuring access and inclusion. J Res Spec Educ Needs. 2012;12(4):192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Group BMJP. Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. BMJ. 1998;317(7167):1248.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ligthelm RJ, Borzì V, Gumprecht J, Kawamori R, Wenying Y, Valensi P. Importance of observational studies in clinical practice. Clin Ther. 2007;29:Spec No:1284–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sessler DI, Imrey PB. Clinical research methodology 3: randomized controlled trials. Anesth Analg. 2015;121(4):1052–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hernandez AF, Fleurence RL, Rothman RL. The ADAPTABLE trial and PCORnet: shining light on a new research paradigm. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(8):635–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lederle FA, Cushman WC, Ferguson RE, Brophy MT, Fiore Md LD. Chlorthalidone versus hydrochlorothiazide: a new kind of veterans affairs cooperative study. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(9):663–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Faubion CW, Andrew JD. Book Review: Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley 464 pp., $47.50 (hardcover). Rehabil Couns Bull. 2001;44(3):178–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Holly C, Salmond S, Saimbert M. Comprehensive systematic review for advanced practice nursing. 2nd ed. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2016. 500 p.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, Lisy K. The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;3(3):123–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets D. Fundamentals of clinical trials [internet]. 4th ed. New York: Springer; 2010. [citato 28 marzo 2019]. https://www.springer.com/la/book/9781441915863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tomlin G, Borgetto B. Research pyramid: a new evidence-based practice model for occupational therapy. Am J Occup Ther. 2011;65(2):189–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kovner AR, Rundall TG. Evidence-based management reconsidered. Front Health Serv Manag. 2006;22(3):3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Larzelere RE, Kuhn BR, Johnson B. The intervention selection bias: an underrecognized confound in intervention research. Psychol Bull. 2004;130(2):289–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Berger VW, Alperson SY. A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial quality. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2009;4(2):79–88.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Steiner PM, Kim Y, Hall CE, Su D. Graphical models for quasi-experimental designs. Sociol Methods Res. 2017;46(2):155–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kim Y, Steiner P. Quasi-Experimental Designs for Causal Inference. Educ Psychol. 2016;51(3–4):395–405.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lee SW, Taylor R, Kielhofner G, Fisher G. Theory use in practice: a national survey of therapists who use the model of human occupation. Am J Occup Ther. 2008;62(1):106–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pozzi C, Lanzoni A, Lucchi E, Bergamini L, Bevilacqua P, Manni B, et al. A pilot study of community-based occupational therapy for persons with dementia (COTID-IT program) and their caregivers: evidence for applicability in Italy. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019;31(9):1299–304.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-018-1078-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hynes SM, Field B, Ledgerd R, Swinson T, Wenborn J, di Bona L, et al. Exploring the need for a new UK occupational therapy intervention for people with dementia and family carers: community occupational therapy in dementia (COTiD). A focus group study. Aging Ment Health. 2016;20(7):762–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wenborn J, Hynes S, Moniz-Cook E, Mountain G, Poland F, King M, et al. Community occupational therapy for people with dementia and family carers (COTiD-UK) versus treatment as usual (valuing active life in dementia [VALID] programme): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17(1):65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lanzoni A, Fabbo A, Basso D, Pedrazzini P, Bortolomiol E, Jones M, et al. Interventions aimed to increase independence and Well-being in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: review of some interventions in the Italian context. Neurol Psychiatry Brain Res. 2018;30:137–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SUPSI - University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern SwitzerlandMannoSwitzerland
  2. 2.University of PadovaPadovaItaly
  3. 3.Novilunio AssociationPadovaItaly
  4. 4.Department of NursingUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain
  5. 5.Department of Rehabilitation and Aged Care, Unit of the Ancelle HospitalFondazione Teresa CamplaniCremonaItaly

Personalised recommendations