Search

Background/aim Home visits, used by occupational therapists to facilitate independence and enhance safety, are effective but costly and time consuming. This research aims to establish the level of agreement in equipment prescribed by occupational therapists using: digital photographs only, and using home visits and digital photographs, respectively. Method Quasi-experimental methodological design conducted in private dwellings in the community in Adelaide with rehabilitation patients and their family members. The equipment recommended by occupational therapists for the toilet and bathroom using similar methods (both digital photographs from previous data; n = 5) was compared with equipment recommended using different methods (conventional home visits vs. digital photographs; n = 14). Results Percent agreement for equipment prescribed between groups, that is digital only and home visit/photography, respectively, were: 72.5/83.9% for toilet; 87.4/88.3% for bathroom and 83/87% for toilet and bathroom. Variability of agreement in the equipment prescribed showed that some items of equipment were incongruently prescribed, by both methods for toilet and bathroom areas. Conclusion Using digital photographs taken by family members, patient information, and an equipment list is a reliable method of making accurate equipment prescriptions in the toilet and bathroom areas. To enhance accuracy, in-depth patient information via face-to-face interview and measurements of physical environment should be included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Returning to driving is often a goal for people with acquired disabilities. Vehicle modifications make it possible for people with both acquired and lifelong disabilities to drive yet can be costly. There has been no financial evaluation of vehicle modifications in Australia or internationally. Methods: A social return on investment analysis of vehicle modifications was undertaken. Primary data were collected via qualitative interviews with consumers and other stakeholders (e.g. driver‐trained occupational therapists, rehabilitation physicians, driving instructors, vehicle modifiers) (n = 23). Secondary data were collected from literature searches and used to identify suitable financial proxies and make estimations of the proportion of drivers with vehicle modifications experiencing each outcome. A co‐investment model was adopted to estimate social return on investment and payback period for funder and consumer. Five scenarios were developed to illustrate social return for low‐cost modifications (Scenario 1) through to high‐cost modifications (Scenario 5). Results: Social return on investment ratios was positive for funder and consumer investment in all five scenarios. Social return on investment calculations based on co‐investment ranged from $17.32 for every $1 invested (Scenario 1) to $2.78 for every $1 invested (Scenario 5). Consumers' payback periods were between 5.4 and 7.1 months, and funders between 3.5 weeks and 2 years 8.4 months. Conclusion: Vehicle modifications represent sound investments for both funders and consumers. Given the short payback periods, funders should reconsider age restrictions on vehicles considered suitable for modifications, especially for low‐ to medium‐cost modifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]