Understanding assistive technology as a pre-requisite for choice and participation

References

• Andrich, R., & Besio, S. (2002). Being informed, demanding and responsible consumers of assistive technology: An educational issue. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1-3), 152–159. doi: 10.1080/09638280110064778
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe. (2012). Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: Position paper. Retrieved from http://aaate.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/02/ATServiceDelivery_PositionPaper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2009). Disability in Australia: Multiple disabilities and need for assistance. Retrieved from www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442468280
   Google Scholar
• Baxter, K., Glendinning, C., & Clarke, S. (2008). Making informed choices in social care: The importance of accessible information. Health & Social Care in the Community, 16(2), 197–207. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2007.00742.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (2015). Principles of assistive technology: Introducing the Human Activity Assistive Technology Model. In A. M. Cook & J. M. Polgar (Eds.), Assistive technologies (4th ed., pp. 1–15). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
   Google Scholar
• Curryer, B., Stancliffe, R. J., & Dew, A. (2015). Self-determination: Adults with intellectual disability and their family. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 40(4), 394–399. doi: 10.3109/13668250.2015.1029883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finlay, L. (2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. Phenomenology for therapists: Researching the lived world (pp. 139–148). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Foster, M. M., Henman, P., Fleming, J., Tilse, C., & Harrington, R. (2012). The politics of entitlement and personalisation: Perspectives on a proposed national disability long-term care and support scheme in Australia. Social Policy and Society, 11(03), 331–343. doi: 10.1017/S147474641200005X
   Google Scholar
• Gamble, M. J., Dowler, D. L., & Hirsh, A. E. (2004). Informed decision making on assistive technology workplace accommodations for people with visual impairments. Work, 23(2), 123–130.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hammel, J., Southall, K., Jutai, J. W., Finlayson, M., Kashindi, G., & Fok, D. (2013). Evaluating use and outcomes of mobility technology: A multiple stakeholder analysis. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8(4), 294–304.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hammell, K. W. (2015). Quality of life, participation and occupational rights: A capabilities perspective. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 62(2), 78–85. doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.12183
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. (2008). Troubles with triangulation. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 22–36). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hocking, C. (1999). Function or feelings: Factors in abandonment of assistive devices. Technology and Disability, 11, 3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Imrie, R., & Edwards, C. (2007). The geographies of disability: Reflections on the development of a sub-discipline. Geography Compass, 1(3), 623–640. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00032.x
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. (2016). ISO 9999:2016 Assistive products for persons with disability: Classification and terminology. Geneva: ISO.
   Google Scholar
• Lindqvist, E., Nygard, L., & Borell, L. (2013). Significant junctures on the way towards becoming a user of assistive technology in Alzheimer’s disease. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 20(5), 386–396. doi: 10.3109/11038128.2013.766761
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Llewellyn, G. (2014). Report of audit of disability research in Australia. Retrieved from www.dss.gov.au/disability-and-carers/audit-of-disability-research-in-australia
   Google Scholar
• Löfqvist, C., Nygren, C., Széman, Z., & Iwarsson, S. (2005). Assistive devices among very old people in five European countries. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 12(4), 181–192. doi: 10.1080/11038120500210652
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lopez, K. A., & Willis, D. G. (2004). Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), 726–735. doi: 10.1177/1049732304263638
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, J. K., Martin, L. G., Stumbo, N. J., & Morrill, J. H. (2011). The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 6(3), 225–242. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2010.522685
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McDonald, C., & Chenoweth, L. (2009). (Re)Shaping social work: An Australian case study. British Journal of Social Work, 39(1), 144–160. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcm094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mladenov, T. (2015). Neoliberalism, postsocialism, disability. Disability & Society, 30(3), 445–459. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2015.1021758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortenson, W. B., & Miller, W. C. (2008). The wheelchair procurement process: Perspectives of clients and prescribers. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 75(3), 167–175. doi: 10.1177/000841740807500308
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Aids and Equipment Reform Alliance. (2010). Submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into a Long Term Disability Care and Support Scheme. Retrieved from www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/disability-support/submissions/sub0530.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Health and Medical Research Council. (2007). National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Retrieved from www.nhmrc.gov.au/book/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research
   Google Scholar
• National People with Disabilities and Carers Council. (2009). Shut out: The experience of people with disabilities and their families in Australia: National Disability Strategy Consultation Report. Retrieved from www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/disability/pubs/policy/community_consult/Pages/default.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Oxford English dictionary. (2013). Choice, n. OED Online. Retrieved from www.oed.com/view/Entry/32111?rskey=KPDDuM&result=1#eid
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, J., O’Brien, K., Hill, S., & Moore, D. (2013). Research for the National Disability Agreement Aids and Equipment Reform: Final Report. Canberra, Australia: Disability Policy and Research Working Group.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, D. B., & Murray, G. C. (2006). Ethics and assistive technology service provision. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1(1-2), 59–67.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Purcal, C., Fisher, K. R., & Laragy, C. (2014). Analysing choice in Australian individual funding disability policies. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 73(1), 88–102. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151–166. doi: 10.1080/14649880500120491
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. A., Larkin, M. H., & Flowers, P. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretive phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 53–80). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Soldatic, K., & Chapman, A. (2010). Surviving the assault? The Australian disability movement and the neoliberal workfare state. Social Movement Studies, 9(2), 139–154. doi: 10.1080/14742831003603299
   Google Scholar
• Steel, E. J. (2017). The right choice? An interpretive policy analysis of assistive technology in Australian disability services. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol. Retrieved from www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Verdonck, M., Steggles, E., Nolan, M., & Chard, G. (2014). Experiences of using an Environmental Control System (ECS) for persons with high cervical spinal cord injury: The interplay between hassle and engagement. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9(1), 70–78. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2013.823572
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wessels, R. D., Dijcks, B., Soede, M., Gelderblom, G. J., & De Witte, L. P. (2003). Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview. Technology and Disability, 15(4), 231–238.
   Google Scholar
• World Federation of Occupational Therapists. (2006). WFOT position statement: Human rights. Retrieved from http://www.wfot.org/ResourceCentre.aspx
   Google Scholar
• World Federation of Occupational Therapists. (2012). WFOT position statement: Occupational science (revised). Retrieved from http://www.wfot.org/ResourceCentre.aspx
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Retrieved from www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/
   Google Scholar