Mainstream Smart Home Technology–Based Intervention to Enhance Functional Independence in Individuals With Complex Physical Disabilities: Single-Group Pre-Post Feasibility Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Mainstream smart home technologies (MSHTs), such as home automation devices and smart speakers, are becoming more powerful, affordable, and integrated into daily life. While not designed for individuals with disabilities, MSHT has the potential to serve as assistive technology to enhance their independence and participation. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to describe a comprehensive MSHT-based intervention named ASSIST (Autonomy, Safety, and Social Integration via Smart Technologies) and evaluate its feasibility in enhancing the functional independence of individuals with complex physical disabilities. METHODS: ASSIST is a time-limited intervention with a design based on the human activity assistive technology model, emphasizing client-centered goals and prioritizing individual needs. The intervention follows a structured assistive technology service delivery process that includes 2 assessment sessions to determine technology recommendations, installation and setup of the recommended technology, and up to 8 training sessions. An occupational therapist led the intervention, supported by a contractor and a technologist. Feasibility was evaluated through several measures: (1) the ASSIST Functional Performance Index, which quantifies the number of tasks transitioned from requiring assistance to independent completion and from higher levels of assistance or effort to lower levels; (2) pre- and postintervention measures of perceived task performance and satisfaction using a 10-point scale; (3) the number and types of tasks successfully addressed, along with the costs of devices and installation services; and (4) training effectiveness using the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS). RESULTS: In total, 17 powered wheelchair users with complex physical disabilities completed the study with 100% session attendance. Across participants, 127 tasks were addressed, with 2 to 10 tasks at an average cost of US $3308 (SD US $1192) per participant. Of these tasks, 95 (74.8%) transitioned from requiring partial or complete assistance to independent completion, while 24 (18.9%) either improved from requiring complete to partial assistance or, if originally performed independently, required reduced effort. Only 8 (6.3%) tasks showed no changes. All training goals, except for 2, were achieved at or above the expected level, with a baseline average GAS score of 22.6 (SD 3.5) and a posttraining average GAS score of 77.2 (SD 4.5). Perceived task performance and satisfaction showed significant improvement, with performance score increasing from a baseline mean of 2.6 (SD 1.2) to 8.8 (SD 1.0; P<.001) and satisfaction score rising from an average of 2.9 (SD 1.3) to 9.0 (SD 0.9; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The ASSIST intervention demonstrated the immediate benefits of enhancing functional independence and satisfaction with MSHT among individuals with complex physical disabilities. While MSHT shows promise in addressing daily living needs at lower costs, barriers such as digital literacy, device setup, and caregiver involvement remain. Future work should focus on scalable models, caregiver engagement, and sustainable solutions for real-world implementation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».