Top > JACIII > Issues on Assistive Products from Developments to Social Accep ...

single-jc.php

JACIII Vol.21 No.1 pp. 125-132
doi: 10.20965/jaciii.2017.p0125
(2017)

Review:

Views over last 60 days: 1,294

Issues on Assistive Products from Developments to Social Acceptance: A Literature Review

Isamu Kajitani

National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
Central 2, Umezono 1-1-1 Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8568, Japan

Received:
May 20, 2016
Accepted:
November 2, 2016
Published:
January 20, 2017
Creative Commons License
Keywords:
assistive products, human-centered design, technology acceptance, information asymmetry, information stickiness
Abstract
This paper reviews issues on assistive products that help persons with disability to participate in activities in society, with the goal of ensuring that as many such products as possible should be better accepted and used in society. We focus on information that relate to the process from product developments to social acceptance. We first describe three information-related issues (transfer, understanding, and quality). Then, we present an overview of the aspects of development and social acceptance of such assistive products. Finally, we consider information items we need to confirm to ensure their success.
Cite this article as:
I. Kajitani, “Issues on Assistive Products from Developments to Social Acceptance: A Literature Review,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., Vol.21 No.1, pp. 125-132, 2017.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] ISO 9999:2011 Assistive products for persons with disability – Classification and terminology.
  2. [2] R. G. Cooper, “A process model for industrial new product development,” IEEE Trans. on Engineering Management, EM-30, No.1 , pp. 2-11, 1983.
  3. [3] R. G. Cooper, and E. J. Kleinschmidt, “An Investigation into the New Product Process: Steps, Deficiencies, and Impact,” J. of Product Innovation Management, Vol.3, pp. 71-85, 1986.
  4. [4] G. J. Stigler, “The Economics of Information,” J. of Political Economy, Vol.69, No.3, pp. 213-225, 1961.
  5. [5] K. J. Arrow, “Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care,” The American Economic Review, Vol.58, pp. 941-973, 1963.
  6. [6] G. A. Akerlof, “The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,” The Quarterly J. of Economics, Vol.84, No.3., pp. 488-500, 1970.
  7. [7] E. V. Hippel, “Sticky Information’ and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation,” Management Science, Vol.40, No.4, pp. 429-439, 1994.
  8. [8] G. Szulanski, “Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm,” Strategic Management J., Vol.17 (Special Issue), pp. 27-43, 1996.
  9. [9] Herbert A Simon, “Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization (3rd Ed.),” The Free Press, Collier Macmillan Publishers, London, UK, 1976.
  10. [10] D. Kahneman, “Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics,” American Economic Review, Vol.93, No.5, pp. 1449-1475, 2003.
  11. [11] Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, “Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases,” Science, Vol.185, No.4157, pp. 1124-1131, 1974.
  12. [12] E. M. Rogers, “Diffusion of Innovations,” The Free Press, 2003.
  13. [13] A. Souza, A. Kelleher, R. Cooper, R. A. Cooper, L. I. Iezzoni, and D. M. Collins, “Multiple sclerosis and mobility-related assistive technology: systematic review of literature,” J. Rehabil Res Dev., Vol.47, pp. 213-223, 2010.
  14. [14] Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, “The periodic health examination,” Can Med Assoc J., Vol.121, pp. 1193-1254, 1979.
  15. [15] D Clayback, R Hostak, J. A. Leahy, J. Minkel, M. Piper, R. O. Smith, and T. Vaarwerk, “Standards for assistive technology funding: What are the right criteria?,” Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, Vol.9, No.1, pp. 39-54, 2015.
  16. [16] METIS, JFMDA, “Medical Device Regulatory Science Guidebook,” 2012 (in Japanese).
  17. [17] D. C. Gause and G. M. Weinberg, “Exploring Requirements: Quality Before Design,” Dorset House Publ. Co., Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1989.
  18. [18] R. G. Cooper, “Perspective: The Stage-Gate®Idea-to-Launch Process – Update, What’s New, and NexGen Systems.,” J. of Product Innovation Management, Vol.25, pp. 213-232, 2008.
  19. [19] ISO 9241-210 / Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems.
  20. [20] R. G. Cooper, “What’s next? After Stage-Gate,” ResearchTechnology Management, Vol.157, No.1, pp. 20-31, 2014.
  21. [21] ISO 9241-11:1998 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on usability.
  22. [22] IEC 62366-1:2015 Medical devices – Part 1: Application of usability engineering to medical devices.
  23. [23] Analysing and federating the European assistive technology ICT industry, Europe’s Information Society, 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=606 [Accessed May 20, 2016].
  24. [24] M. Solomon, G. Bamossy, S. Askegaard and M. K. Hogg, “Consumer behaviour: a European perspective, (3rd Ed.),” Financial Times, 2006.
  25. [25] F. D. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly, Vol.13, No.3, pp. 319-340, 1989.
  26. [26] V. Venkatesh, and F. D. Davis, “A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test,” Decision Sciences, Vol.27, pp. 451-481, 1996.
  27. [27] G. C. Moore, and I. Benbasat, “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation,” Information Systems Research, Vol.2, No.3, pp. 192-222, 1991.
  28. [28] Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology,
    http://www.parliament.uk/post [Accessed May 20, 2016].
  29. [29] The Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag, http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/en/ [Accessed May 20, 2016].
  30. [30] Office parlementaire d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques, http://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/les-delegations-comite-et-office-parlementaire/office-parlementaire-d-evaluation-des-choix-scientifiques-et-technologiques [Accessed May 20, 2016].
  31. [31] The Danish Board of Technology Foundation,
    http://www.tekno.dk/?lang=en [Accessed May 20, 2016].
  32. [32] EUnetHTA, http://www.eunethta.eu/ [Accessed May 20, 2016].
  33. [33] K. Kidhol, A. G. Ekelan, L. K. Jensen, et al., “A model for assessment of telehealth applications: MAST,” Int. J. Technol Assess Health Care, Vol.28, pp. 44-51, 2012.

Creative Commons License  This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationa License.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Dec. 31, 2024