Factors that prevent or assist the integration of assistive technology into the workplace for people with spinal cord injuries: Perspectives of the users and their employers and co-workers

Examined the barriers faced by people with Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI) when integrating their Assistive Technology (AT) into the workplace, as well as factors that contribute to successful integration. In-depth interviews were taken with 5 men (aged 37-50 yrs) with SCI, 3 of their employers and 2 co-workers. Results indicate that in addition to the barriers previously outlined in the literature related to funding the technology, time delays, information availability, training and maintenance, other issues were highlighted. Implications for service providers are considered in relation to these barriers and the factors that prompted successful integration. The author discusses limitations of the study and makes recommendations for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)

Feasibility of an evidence-based literature search service for general practitioners

Objective: To test the feasibility of an evidence-based clinical literature search service to help answer general practitioners' (GPs') clinical questions. Design: Two search services supplied GPs who submitted questions with the best available empirical evidence to answer these questions. The GPs provided feedback on the value of the service, and concordance of answers from the two search services was assessed. Setting: Two literature search services (Queensland and Victoria), operating for nine months from February 1999. Main outcome measures: Use of the service; time taken to locate answers; availability of evidence; value of the service to GPs; and consistency of answers from the two services. Results: 58 GPs asked 160 questions (29 asked one, 11 asked five or more). The questions concerned treatment (65%), aetiology (17%), prognosis (13%), and diagnosis (5%). Answering a question took a mean of 3 hours 32 minutes of personnel time (95% Cl, 2.67-3.97); nine questions took longer than 10 hours each to answer, the longest taking 23 hours 30 minutes. Evidence of suitable quality to provide a sound answer was available for 126 (79%) questions. Feedback data for 84 (53%) questions, provided by 42 GPs, showed that they appreciated the service, and asking the questions changed clinical care. There were many minor differences between the answers from the two centres, and substantial differences in the evidence found for 4/14 questions. However, conclusions reached were largely similar, with no or only minor differences for all questions. Conclusions: It is feasible to provide a literature search service, but further assessment is needed to establish its cost effectiveness.

Matching prescription claims with medication data for nursing home residents: Implications for prescriber feedback, drug utilisation studies and selection of prescription claims database

Medication data retrieved from Australian Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) claims for 44 veterans residing in nursing homes and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) claims for 898 nursing home residents were compared with medication data from nursing home records to determine the optimal time interval for retrieving claims data and its validity. Optimal matching was achieved using 12 weeks of RPBS claims data, with 60% of medications in the RPBS claims located in nursing home administration records, and 78% of medications administered to nursing home residents identified in RPBS claims. In comparison, 48% of medications administered to nursing home residents could be found in 12 weeks of PBS data, and 56% of medications present in PBS claims could be matched with nursing home administration records. RPBS claims data was superior to PBS, due to the larger number of scheduled items available to veterans and the veteran's file number, which acts as a unique identifier. These findings should be taken into account when using prescription claims data for medication histories, prescriber feedback, drug utilisation, intervention or epidemiological studies. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.