Assistive technology for people with deafblindness in Southern Africa: a Delphi study exploring dimensions of impact

References

• Groce N, Kett M, Lang R, et al. Disability and poverty: the need for a more nuanced understanding of implications for development policy and practice. Third World Quarterly. 2011;32(8):1493–1513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosseinpoor AR, Stewart Williams JA, Gautam J, et al. Socioeconomic inequality in disability among adults: a multicountry study using the world health survey. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(7):1278–1286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khasnabis C, Mirza Z, MacLachlan M. Opening the GATE to inclusion for people with disabilities. The Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2229–2230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borg J, Östergren P, Larsson S, et al. Assistive technology use is associated with reduced capability poverty: a cross-sectional study in Bangladesh. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012;7(2):112–121.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tebbutt E, Brodmann R, Borg J, et al. Assistive products and the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Global Health. 2016;12(1):1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLachlan M, McVeigh J, Cooke M, et al. Intersections between systems thinking and market shaping for assistive technology: the SMART (Systems-Market for assistive and related technologies) thinking matrix. IJERPH. 2018;15(12):2627.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. Policy brief: access to assistive technology. Geneva (Switzerland): WHO; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• MacLachlan M, Scherer M. Systems thinking for assistive technology: a commentary on the GREAT summit. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):492–496.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Federation of the Deafblind. At risk of exclusion from CRPD and SDGs implementation: inequality and persons with deafblindness. Geneva (Switzerland): World Federation of the Deafblind; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Cantin S, De Abreu Cybis W, Trudeau S, et al. Assessment of a communication assistive technology for individuals with deafblindness: a case study. JDBSC. 2019;5(1):73–95.
   Google Scholar
• Cantin S, de Abreu Cybis W, Durocher N. Setup by a person with deafblindness of a face-to-face communication assistive technology based on generally available applications. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. 2020;1–7. DOI:10.1080/17483107.2020.1751315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittorff MM. Communication guide support for Western Australians with deafblindness: a pilot project. Perth (Australia): Curtin University; 2014; p. 214.
   Google Scholar
• Raanes E, Berge SS. Sign language interpreters use of haptic signs in interpreted meetings with deafblind persons. Journal of Pragmatics. 2017;107:91–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatakeyama T, Watanabe T, Takahashi K, et al. Development of communication assistive technology for persons with Deaf-Blindness and physical limitation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;217:974–979.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dyzel V, Oosterom-Calo R, Worm M, et al. Assistive technology to promote communication and social interaction for people with deafblindness: a systematic review. Front Educ. 2020;164.
   Google Scholar
• Wittich W, Granberg S, Wahlqvist M, et al. Device abandonment in deafblindness: a scoping review of the intersection of functionality and usability through the international classification of functioning, disability and health lens. BMJ Open. 2021;11(1):e044873.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfect E, Jaiswal A, Davies TC. Systematic review: Investigating the effectiveness of assistive technology to enable internet access for individuals with deafblindness. Assist Technol. 2019;31(5):276–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The World Bank. Inclusion matters - the foundation for shared prosperity. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Layton N, Bell D, Buning ME, et al. Opening the GATE: systems thinking from the global assistive technology alliance. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020; 2020/07/0315(5):484–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matter RA, Eide AH. Access to assistive technology in two Southern African countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):792. DOI:10.1186/s12913-018-3605-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Matter R. What works to increase access to assistive technology in Southern Africa. Cape Town (South Africa): University of Cape Town; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Visagie S, Scheffler E, Seymour N, et al. Assistive technology service delivery in South Africa: conceptualising a systems approach. In: Kathard H, Padarath A, Galvaan R, editors. South African health review. Durban (South Africa): Health Systems Trust; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Deafblind Australia. What is deafblindness Australia [Internet]. Burswood (Australia): Deafblind Australia; 2021 [cited 2021 January 30]. Available from: https://www.deafblind.org.au/deafblind-information/what-is-deafblindness/
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. World report on disability. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organisation; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Matter R, Harniss M, Oderud T, et al. Assistive technology in resource-limited environments: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017; 2017/02/1712(2):105–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, et al. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(22):1243–1251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith R, Scherer M, Layton N. Committing to AT outcomes and synthesizing practice, research and policy. In: Layton N, Borg J, editors. Global perspectives on assistive technology: proceedings of the GReAT Consultation 2019. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2019. p. 196–217.
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Scherer M, editors. Assistive technology assessment handbook. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Dijkers M. When the best is the enemy of the good: the nature of research evidence used in systematic reviews and guidelines. Austin (TX): NCDDR Task Force on Systematic Review and Guidelines; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Scherer MJ, Ehrlich-Jones L. Measurement characteristics and clinical utility of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment (ATD PA) among mixed patient populations. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2021;102(4):805–806.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0) An overview and recent progress. TAD. 2002;14(3):101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation. 1996; 9(2):159–168.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich R. Tracking individual assistive technology interventions and measuring their outcomes. In: Miesenberger K, Fels D, Archambault D, Peňáz P, Zagler W, editors. Computers helping people with special needs. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Wessels R, Persson J, Lorentsen O, et al. IPPA: individually prioritised problem assessment. TAD. 2002;14(3):141–145.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Living in the state of stuck: how assistive technology impacts on the lives of people with disabilities. 4th ed. Brookline (MA): Brookline Books; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Wessels RD, de Witte L, van den Heuvel W. Measuring effectiveness of and satisfaction with assistive devices from a user perspective: an exploration of the literature. TAD. 2004;16(2):83–90.
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, et al. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2005;84(4):294–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker J, Harris F, Taugher M, et al. Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(5):373–380.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ISO. ISO 9999 Assistive products for persons with disability — Classification and terminology. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• NED. Australia's National Equipment Database. 2021. [cited 2021 Sep 18]. Available from: https://www.askned.com.au/
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Layton N, Shih S. Economic pathway analysis for assistive technology: a pilot study from Australia. Paper presented at the RESNA Annual Conference; 2018 August 3; Arlington, VA.
   Google Scholar
• Layton N, Irlam C. Assistive technology for older Australians: rapid evidence review and economic pathway analysis. Canberra (Australia): National Aged Care Alliance; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Carter R, Vos T, Moodie M, et al. Priority setting in health: origins, description and application of the Australian Assessing Cost-Effectiveness initiative. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8(6):593–617.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• United Nations. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol. Geneva (Switzerland): United Nations; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Watchorn V, Layton N. Advocacy via human rights legislation - the application to assistive technology and accessible environments. Australian Journal of Human Rights. 2011;17(1):117–138.
   Google Scholar
• Desideri L, Salatino C, Pigini L, et al. Using a standard procedure to assess assistive technology service delivery outcomes: a proposal from the Italian network of independent assistive technology centres. In: Layton N, Borg J, editors. Global perspectives on assistive technology: proceedings of the GReAT Consultation 2019. Geneva (Switzerland): WHO; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Dijcks BPJ, Wessels RD, de Vlieger SLM, et al. KWAZO, a new instrument to assess the quality of service delivery in assistive technology provision. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2006; 2006/01/0128(15):909–914.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson Ranada Å, Lidström H. Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process-A systematic review. Assist Technol. 2019;31(2):82–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AAATE. Excellence in the process of AT provision. Linz (Austria): Johannes Kepler University; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• De Jonge D, Layton N, Vicary F, et al. Motivations and incentives: exploring assistive technology service delivery from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. In: Yih-Kuen J, Ray G, editors. RESNA 2015: new frontiers in assistive technology. Denver (CO): RESNA; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Layton N, Volkert A, Joyce R. ARATA/AFDO/OTA Breakfast Forum on Assistive Technology. Australian Assistive Technology Conference; 2018 November 15; Melbourne, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Layton N, Noonan M, O’Connor J. My assistive technology outcomes framework – a collaborative tool for AT users and their practitioners. Melbourne (Australia): AOPA; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Layton N, Thomson C, Noonan M. Consumer-defined outcomes: applying the assistive technology outcomes framework applied to wheeled mobility and seating. Melbourne (Australia): Oceania Seating Symposium; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Layton N, Doyle L, Volkert A. My Outcomes Framework: synthesising the evidence on valued outcomes into a set of user-led and policy-relevant tools. Paper presented at the Occupational Therapy Australia 28th National Conference and Exhibition; 2019 July 10; Sydney, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna H. The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Chichester (UK): Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. p. 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Ogbeifun E, Agwa-Ejon J, Mbohwa C, editors. The Delphi technique: a credible research methodology. Paper presented at the 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management; 2016 March 8–10; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
   Google Scholar
• Jünger S, Payne SA, Brine J, et al. Guidance on conducting and REporting DElphi studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat Med. 2017; 2017/09/0131(8):684–706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southern African Development Community - Towards a common future. 2012. [cited 2021 Sep 1]. Available from: https://www.sadc.int/about-sadc
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Renzo A, Niels-Erik M, Evert-Jan H, et al. Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: an AAAT E/EAST IN position paper. Technol Disabil. 2013;25(3):127–146.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. Priority assistive products list. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organisation; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Boisselle A, Grajo L. They said: a global perspective on access to assistive technology. The Open J Occup Ther. 2018;6(3):2.
   Google Scholar
• Berghs M. Practices and discourses of ubuntu: Implications for an African model of disability? Afr J Disabil. 2017;6:292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar