A description of assistive technology sources, services and outcomes of use in a number of African settings

Abstract

Purpose statement: The article explores assistive technology sources, services and outcomes in South Africa, Namibia, Malawi and Sudan.

Methods: A survey was done in purposively selected sites of the study countries. Cluster sampling followed by random sampling served to identify 400–500 households (HHs) with members with disabilities per country. A HH questionnaire and individual questionnaire was completed. Country level analysis was limited to descriptive statistics.

Results: Walking mobility aids was most commonly bought/provided (46.3%), followed by visual aids (42.6%). The most common sources for assistive technology were government health services (37.8%), “other” (29.8%), and private health services (22.9%). Out of the participants, 59.3% received full information in how to use the device. Maintenance was mostly done by users and their families (37.3%). Devices helped a lot in 73.3% of cases and improved quality of life for 67.9% of participants, while 39.1% experienced functional difficulties despite the devices.

Conclusion: Although there is variation between the study settings, the main impression is that of fragmented or absent systems of provision of assistive technology.

Implications for rehabilitation

• Provision of assistive technology and services varied between countries, but the overall impression was of poor provision and fragmented services.

• The limited provision of assistive technology for personal care and handling products is of concern as many of these devices requires little training and ongoing support while they can make big functional differences.

• Rural respondents experienced more difficulties when using the device and received less information on use and maintenance of the device than their urban counterparts.

• A lack of government responsibility for assistive device services correlated with a lack of information and/or training of participants and maintenance of devices.

Keywords:

• Assistive technology
• Africa
• sources
• services
• outcomes

Notes

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Commission Framework Programme 7: Project Title: Enabling universal access to healthcare for vulnerable people in resource poor setting in Africa [grant No. 223501].

Notes

1 The terms technology and devices will be used interchangeably in the text.

2 EquitAble is a four-year EU funded collaborative research project on access to health care for vulnerable people in resource poor settings in Sudan, Namibia, Malawi and South Africa, carried out in 2010–2014. The survey reported in this article was one of three research components in Equitable.