Background. In lifeworld research, the individual's experience of meaning is of primary importance. Purpose. This paper explores how individuals post stroke who have a disability, described their personal meaning and lived experiences associated with the use of assistive devices. Methods. A hermeneutic-phenomenological research approach was used. A conversational interview was conducted with 22 post-stroke individuals regarding their daily experiences utilizing assistive devices. Results. The results showed a dual experience regarding the use of assistive devices, which is often complex and contradictory. The devices were viewed as a prerequisite for well-being and independence but at the same time, the devices gave rise to negative feelings because of the restrictions implied by their use. These dual experiences were explored in relation to the lived body, space, relations to others, and time. Practice Implications. The results of this study will facilitate occupational therapists understanding of an individual's experiences utilizing assistive devices and their need for support with this process.
AminzadehF., & EdwardsN. (1998). Exploring seniors' views on the use of assistive devices in fall prevention. Public Health Nursing, 15 (4), 297–304.
2.
AppelrosP., NydevikI., SeigerA., & TerentA. (2002). High incidence rates of stroke in Örebro, Sweden: Further support for regional incidence differences within Scandinavia. Cerebrovasular Disease, 14 (3–4), 161–168.
3.
AppelrosP., NydevikI., & ViitanenM. (2003). Poor outcome after first-ever stroke: predictors for death, dependency, and recurrent stroke within the first year. Stroke, 34 (1), 122–126.
4.
BennerP. E. (1994). Interpretive phenomenology: Embodiment, caring and ethics in health and illness. London: Sage.
5.
BrooksN. (1991). Users' responses to assistive devices for physical disability. Social Science and Medicine, 32, 1417–1424.
6.
BurtonC. R. (2000). Living with stroke: A phenomenological study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32 (2), 301–309.
7.
CopolilloA. E. (2001). Use of mobility devices: The decision-making process of nine African-American older adults. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 21, 185–200.
8.
CsikszentmihalyiM., & Rochberg-HaltonE. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
9.
DavisL. J. (1997). The disability studies reader. London: Routledge.
10.
FinleyL. (1999). Applying phenomenology in research: Problems, principles and practice. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 299–306.
11.
FolsteinM., & FolsteinS. (1975). “Mini-Mental State” A practical metod for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.
12.
GitlinL. N., & LevineR. (1992). Prescribing adaptive devices to the elderly: Principles for treatment in the home. International Journal of Technology and Aging, 5 (1).
13.
GitlinL. N., LuborskyM. R., & SchemmR. L. (1998). Emerging concerns of older stroke patients about assistive device use. Gerontologist, 38 (2), 169–180.
14.
GoffmanE. (1990). Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
15.
HockingC. (1994). Objects in the environment: a critique of the model of human occupation dimensions. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1, 77–84.
16.
HockingC. (2000). Having and using objects in the Western world. Journal of Occupational Science, 7 (3), 148–157.
17.
HockingC., & WilcockA. (1997). Occupational therapists as object users: a critique of Australian practice 1954–1995. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 44, 167–176.
18.
IhdeD. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.
19.
International Organization for Standardization. (2002). Technical aids for persons with disabilities — classification and terminology (3rd ed.). Genève: Iso.
20.
KasteM., FogelholmR., & RissanenA. (1998). Economic burden of stroke and the evaluation of new therapies. Public Health, 112 (2), 103–112.
21.
KvaleS. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
22.
LampinenJ., & ThamK. (2003). Interaction with the physical environment in everyday occupation after stroke: A phenomenological study of persons with visuospatial agnosia. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 10, 147–156.
23.
Louise-BenderP. T., KimJ., & WeinerB. (2002). The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: A review of personal factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24 (1–3), 5–20.
24.
LuborskyM. R. (1993). Sociocultural factors shaping technology usage. Technology and Disability, 2 (1), 71–78.
25.
LundM. L., & NygårdL. (2003). Incorporating or resisting assistive devices: Different approaches to achieving a desired occupational self-image. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 23, 67–75.
26.
LuptonD., & SeymourW. (2000). Technology, selfhood and physical disability. Social Science and Medicine, 50 (12), 1851–1862.
27.
MannW. C., HurrenD., TomitaM., & CharvatB. A. (1995). A follow-up study of older stroke survivors living at home. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 11, 52–66.
28.
Mc MillenA., & SöderbergS. (2002). Disabled persons' experiences of dependence on assistive devices. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 9, 176–183.
29.
Merleau-PontyM. (2002). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.
30.
O'BrienP., DyckI., CaronS., & MortensonP. (2002). Environmental analysis: Insights from sociological and geographical perspectives. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69, 229–238.
31.
PetterssonI., BerndtssonI., AppelrosP., & AhlströmG. (2005). Lifeworld perspectives on assistive devices: Lived experiences of spouses of persons with stroke. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 12 (4), 159–169.
32.
PippinK., & FernieG. R. (1997). Designing devices that are acceptable to the frail elderly: A new understanding based upon how older people perceive a walker. Technology and Disability, 7 (1/2), 93–102.
33.
SchererM. J. (1996). Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disability and Rehabilitation, 18, 439–448.
34.
SmithR. (1995). A client-centered model for equipment prescription (client's values and roles, effective use of adaptive equipment). Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 9 (4), 39–52.
35.
SmithR., QuineS., AndersonJ., & BlackK. (2002). Assistive devices: Self-reported use by older people in Victoria. Australian Health Review, 25 (4), 169–177.
36.
ToombsS. K. (1992). The meaning of illness: A phenomenological account of the different perspectives of physician and patient. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.
37.
ToombsS. K. (2001). Handbook of phenomenology and medicine. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
38.
Van ManenM. (1997). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). London, ON: Althouse press.
39.
Van ManenM. (1998). Modalities of body experience in illness and health. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 7–24.
40.
Van SwietenJ., KoudstaalP., VisserM., SchoutenH., & Van GijnJ. (1988). Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke, 19, 604–607.
41.
VerbruggeL. M., RennertC., & MadansJ. H. (1997). The great efficacy of personal and equipment assistance in reducing disability. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 384–392.
42.
WarlowC. P. (1998). Epidemiology of stroke. Lancet, 352, SIII1–4.
43.
WestergrenG. (1990). Time: Experiences, perspectives and coping strategies. (Doctoral disertation, Uppsala University). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.
44.
WielandtT., & StrongJ. (2000). Compliance with prescribed adaptive equipment: A literature review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 65–75.
45.
World Health Organization (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization.
