Advanced search
Publication Cover
Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology Volume 13, 2018 - Issue 5: Position Papers from the First Global Research, Innovation, and Education on Assistive Technology (GREAT) Summit
Submit an article Journal homepage
19,255
Views
80
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

Assistive technology and people: a position paper from the first global research, innovation and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit

Deirdre DesmondDepartment of Psychology and Assisting Living and Learning Institute, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland; Correspondence[email protected]
,
Natasha LaytonDepartment of Health Professions, Swinburne University, Hawthorn, Australia;
,
Jacob BentleyDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Seattle Pacific University and School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA;
,
Fleur Heleen BootDepartment of Psychology and Assisting Living and Learning Institute, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland;
,
Johan BorgLund University, Sweden; ORCID Iconhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-4432-5256
ORCID Icon,
Bishnu Maya DhunganaGender and Social Inclusion Specialist, Civil Homes Dhapakhel Lalitpur, Nepal;
,
Pamela GallagherFaculty of Science and Health, School of Nursing, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland; ORCID Iconhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-5558-1269
ORCID Icon,
Lynn GitlowOccupational Therapy, Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY, USA;
,
Rosemary Joan GowranSchool of Allied Health, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland;
,
Nora GroceLeonard Cheshire Research Centre, University College London, London, UK;
,
Katerina MavrouSchool of Academic and Pedagogy, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus;
,
Trish MackeoghCentre for Behaviour Analysis, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK;
,
Rachael McDonaldDepartment of Health and Medical Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia;
,
Cecilia PetterssonDepartment of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden;
&
Marcia J. SchererInstitute for Matching Person & Technology, Inc., Webster, MA, USA
 show all
Pages 437-444 | Received 01 Mar 2018, Accepted 26 Apr 2018, Published online: 17 May 2018

References

  • Donnelly J. Human rights and social provision. J Hum Rights. 2008;7:123–138.
  • Parnes P, Cameron D, Christie N, et al. Disability in low-income countries: issues and implications. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:1170–1180.
  • Buckingham J. Writing histories of disability in India: strategies of inclusion. Disabil Soc. 2011;26:419–431.
  • Visagie S, Eide AH, Mannan H, et al. A description of assistive technology sources, services and outcomes of use in a number of African settings. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12:705–712.
  • McSweeney E, Gowran RJ. Wheelchair service provision education and training in low and lower middle income countries: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;1–13.
  • Borg J, Larsson S, Östergren PO. The right to assistive technology: for whom, for what, and by whom? Disabil Soc. 2011;26:151–167.
  • Sciubba JD. Securing rights in the twenty-first century: a comparison of the disability and older persons’ rights conventions. J Hum Rights. 2016;15:533–549.
  • Khasnabis C, Mirza Z, MacLachlan M. Opening the GATE to inclusion for people with disabilities. Lancet. 2015;386:2229–2230.
  • MacLachlan M, Gallagher P, editors. Enabling technologies: body image and body function. Edinburgh (UK): Churchill Livingstone; 2004.
  • MacLachlan M, Ni Mhaille G, Gallagher P, et al. Embodiment and appearance. In: Rumsey N, Harcourt D, editors. The Oxford handbook of the psychology of appearance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Oxford University Press; 2012.
  • United Nations. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. New York (NY): United Nations; 2007.
  • Goffman E. Stigma – notes on the management of spoiled identity. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1963.
  • Hocking C. Function or feelings: factors in abandonment of assistive devices. Technol Disabil. 1999;11:3–11.
  • Albrecht G, Seelman K, Bury M, editors. Handbook of disability studies. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2001.
  • Hansson SO. The ethics of enabling technology. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2007;16:257–267.
  • ISO. Assistive products for persons with disability – classification and terminology. 2016.
  • Carver CS, Scheier MF. On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1998.
  • Coffey L, Gallagher P, Desmond D, et al. Goal management tendencies predict trajectories of adjustment to lower limb amputation up to 15 months post rehabilitation discharge. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95:1895–1902.
  • Standal Ø. Re-embodiment: incorporation through embodied learning of wheelchair skills. Med Health Care Philos. 2010;14:1–8.
  • Imrie R. Universalism, universal design and equitable access to the built environment. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:873–882.
  • Dong H. Shifting paradigms in universal design. In: Stephanidis C, editor. In universal access in human computer interaction: coping with diversity. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2007. p. 66–74.
  • Mirza M, Gossett Zakrajsek A, Gohil AR. Assessment of the environments of AT use: accessibility, universal design, and sustainability. In: Stefano Federici MS, editor. Assistive technology assessment handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2017.
  • Bauer SM, Lane JP. Convergence of assistive devices and mainstream products: keys to university participation in research, development and commercialisation. Technol Disabil. 2006;18:67–77.
  • Patston P. Constructing functional diversity: a new paradigm beyond disability and impairment. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:1625–1633.
  • Williamson B. Getting a grip: disability in american industrial design of the late twentieth century. Winterthur Portf. 2012;46:213–236.
  • Dunne S, Coffey L, Gallagher P, et al. Beyond function: using assistive technologies following lower limb loss. J Rehabil Med. 2015;47:561–568.
  • Lund M, Nyagard L. Incorporating or resisting assistive devices: different approaches to achieving a desired occupational self-image. OTJR. 2003;23:67–75.
  • Wessels R, deWitte L, Heuvel WVD. Measuring effectiveness of and satisfaction with assistive devices from a user perspective: an exploration of the literature. Technol Disabil. 2004;16:83–90.
  • Scherer MJ, Federici S. Why people use and don’t use technologies: introduction to the special issue on assistive technologies for cognition/cognitive support technologies. NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;37:315–319.
  • Scherer MJ. Living in the state of stuck: how assistive technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. 4th ed. Brookline (MA): Brookline Books; 2005.
  • Pape TL-B, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:5–20.
  • NiMhurchadha S, Gallagher P, MacLachlan M, et al. Identifying successful outcomes and important factors to consider in upper limb amputation rehabilitation: an international web-based Delphi survey. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:1726–1733.
  • Desmond DM, Gallagher P. Coping and psychosocial adjustment to amputation. In: Gallagher P, Desmond DM, MacLachlan M, editors. Psychoprosthetics: state of the knowledge. London (UK): Springer-Verlag; 2008. p. 23–31.
  • Livneh H, Antonak RF. Psychosocial adaptation to chronic illness and disability. Gaithersburg (MD): Aspen Publishers; 1997.
  • Livneh H. Psychosocial adaptation to chronic illness and disability: a conceptual Framework. Rehabil Couns Bull. 2001;44:151–160.
  • Taylor SE. Adjustment to threatening events: a theory of cognitive adaptation. Am Psychol. 1983;38:1161–1173.
  • Wiener C. Untrained, unpaid, and unacknowledged: the patient as worker. Arthritis Care Res. 1989;2:16–21.
  • Schaffalitzky E, Ni Mhurchadha S, Gallagher P, et al. Identifying the values and preferences of prosthetic users: a case study series using the repertory grid technique. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2009;33:157–166.
  • MacLachlan M. Embodiment: clinical, critical & cultural perspectives on health & illness. Milton Keynes: Open University Press; 2004.
  • Rybarczyk B, Nyenhuis DL, Nicholas JJ, et al. Body image, perceived social stigma, and the prediction of psychosocial adjustment to leg amputation. Rehabil Psychol. 1995;40:95–110.
  • Murray CD. An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:963–973.
  • Maes S, Leventhal H, de Ridder DTD. Coping with chronic disease. In: Zeidner M, Endler NS, editors. Handbook of coping: theory, research, applications. New York (NY): Wiley; 1996. p. 221–251.
  • Wegener ST, Hofkamp SE, Ehde DM. Interventions for psychological issues in amputation. In: Gallagher P, Desmond DM, MacLachlan M, editors. Psychoprosthetics: state of the knowledge. London (UK): Springer-Verlag; 2008. p. 91–105.
  • Coffey L, O’Keeffe F, Gallagher P, et al. Cognitive functioning in persons with lower limb amputations: a review. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:1950–1964.
  • O'Neill B, Moran K, Gillespie A. Scaffolding rehabilitation behaviour using a voice-mediated assistive technology for cognition. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2010;20:509–527.
  • O'Neill B. Cognition and mobility rehabilitation following lower limb amputation. In: Gallagher P, Desmond D, MacLachlan M, editors. Psychoprosthetics. London (UK): Springer-Verlag; 2008.
  • Scherer MJ. Assistive technologies and other supports for people with brain impairment. New York (NY): Springer; 2012.
  • Carey AC, Friedman MG, Bryen DN. Use of electronic technologies by people with intellectual disabilities. Ment Retard. 2005;43:322–333.
  • WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva (Switzerland): WHO; 2001.
  • Ubel P, Loewenstein G, Schwarz N, et al. Misimagining the unimaginable: the disability paradox and health care decision making. Health Psychol. 2005;24(4 supplement):S57–S62.
  • Oliver M. The politics of disablement. London (UK): MacMillan; 1990.
  • Hahn HD, Belt TL. Disability identity and attitudes toward cure in a sample of disabled activists. J Health Soc Behav. 2004;45:453–464.
  • Shakespeare T. Disability: suffering, social oppression, or complex predicament? In: Rehmann-Sutter C, Mieth D, editors. The contingent nature of life: bioethics and limits of human existence. Houten (the Netherlands): Springer; 2008. p. 235–246.
  • Roulstone A. Enabling technology: disabled people, work and new technology. Bristol (PA): Taylor & Francis, Inc.; 1998.
  • Sen A. The idea of justice. London (UK): Allan Lane; 2009.
  • 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;7:112–121.
  • Bury M. The sociology of chronic illness: a review of research and prospects. Sociol Health Illn. 2006;13:451–468.
  • Williams S. Is anybody there? Critical realism, chronic illness and the disability debate. Sociol Health Illn. 1999;21:797–819.
  • Walker L, Houpapa L, Mines R. Yolnu information sharing and clarity of understanding. Adelaide (Australia): Motivation Australia and Aboriginal Resource and Development Services; 2013.
  • Bickenbach J. Disability, culture and the UN convention. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:1111–1124.
  • Ilunga Tshiswaka D, Loggins Clay S, Chiu C, et al. Assistive technology use by disability type and race: exploration of a population-based health survey. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11:124–132. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2015.1090487.
  • Chung J, Demiris G, Thompson H. Ethical considerations regarding the use of smart home technologies for older adults: an integrative review. Annu Rev Nurs Res. 2016;34:155.
  • Pigliautile M, Tiberio L, Mecocci P, et al. The geriatrician. In: Scherer MJ, Federici S, editors. Assistive technology assessment handbook. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2017. p. 265–301.
  • Scherer MJ, Federici S, Tiberio L, et al. ICF core set for matching older adults with dementia and technology. Ageing Int. 2012;37:414–440.
  • Federici S, Scherer M, Borsci S. An ideal model of an assistive technology assessment and delivery process. Technol Disabil. 2014;26:27–38.
  • Federici S, Scherer M, J, editors. Assistive technology assessment handbook. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2017.
  • Cook A, Polgar J. Activity, human, and context: the human doing an activity in context. In: Cook A, Polgar J, editors. Assistive technologies: principles and practice. 4th ed. St. Louis (MO): Mosby; 2015. p. 40–67.
  • Cook A, Hussey S. Assistive technologies: principles and practices. 2nd ed. St. Louis (MO): Mosby; 2002.
  • Scherer MJ. The matching person & technology (MPT) model and assessment process. Webster (NY): The Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Inc.; 2005.
  • Bauer S, Elsaesser L-J, Scherer M, et al. Promoting a standard for assistive technology service delivery. Technol Disabil. 2014;26(1):39–48.
  • United Nations. Declaration on the rights of disabled persons. New York (NY): UN General Assembly; 1975.
  • Barnes C, Oliver M, Barton L, et al. Studies today. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press; 2002.
  • Shakespeare T. Disability rights and wrongs. New York (NY): Routledge; 2006.
  • United Nations. Standard rules on the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. New York (NY): United Nations; 1993.
  • Gould M, Leblois A, Cesa Bianchi F, et al. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, assistive technology and information and communication technology requirements: where do we stand on implementation? Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10:295–300.
  • Löfgren H, de Leeuw E, Leahy M, editors. Democratizing health: consumer groups in the policy process. Geelong (Australia): Deakin University; 2011.
  • Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane consumer network.[cited 2018 Jan 15]; Available from: http://www.cochrane.org/multimedia/multimedia-cochrane-colloquia-and-meetings/colloquium-colorado-2010/plenary-1-ming-ming-zp
  • Layton N, Buchanan R, Wilson E. Occupy research. In: Pollard N, Van Bruggen H, Kantartzis S, editors. Occupation based social inclusion. London (UK): Whiting & Birch; in press.
  • Ripat J, Woodgate R. Locating assistive technology within an emancipatory disability research framework. Technol Disabil. 2011;23:87–92.
  • Miesenberger K. Technology and digital revolution. In: Hoogerwerf EJ, Desideri L, Kärki A, et al., editors. Digital inclusion: a white paper. ENTELIS Consortium; 2016. p. 17–19.
  • New Economics Foundation. Co-production: a manifesto for growing the core economy. London (UK): New Economics Foundation; 2012.
  • Knobel M, Lankshear C. DIY media: creating, sharing and learning with new technologies. New York (NY): Peter Lang; 2010.
  • Alper M. Making space in the makerspace: building a mixed-ability maker culture. IDC'13; 24–27 June; New York 2013.
  • Hook J, Verbaan S, Durrant A, et al. A study of the challenges related to DIY assistive technology in the context of children with disabilities. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems; 2014 June 21–25; New York: ACM; 2014. p. 597–606.
  • Hertz G, editor. Critical making. Hollywood (CA): Telharmonium Press; 2012.
  • Fuhrer MJ. Assessing the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of assistive technology interventions for enhancing mobility. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2:149–158.
  • Arthanat S, Bauer SM, Lenker JA, et al. Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2:235–248.
  • Dong H, Cassim J, Coleman R. Addressing the challenges of inclusive design: a case study approach. In: Stephanidis C, editor. Universal access in ambient intelligence environments. Berlin (Germany): Springer-Verlag; 2006. p. 273–286.
  • Arthanat S, Simmons CD, Favreau M. Exploring occupational justice in consumer perspectives on assistive technology. Can J Occup Ther. 2012;79:309–319.
  • Watchorn V, Layton N. Advocacy via human rights legislation – the application to assistive technology and accessible environments. Austr J Human Rights. 2011;17:117–138.
  • Borg J, Lindström A, Larsson S. Assistive technology in developing countries: a review from the perspective of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35:20–29.
  • Whiteneck G, Djikers M. Difficult to measure constructs: conceptual and methodological issues concerning participation and environmental factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:S22–S35.
  • 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.
  • Reisinger KD, Ripat JD. Assistive technology provision within the Navajo nation: user and provider perceptions. Qual Health Res. 2014;24:1501–1517.
  • Lenker J, Harris F, Taugher M, et al. Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8:373–380.
  • Matter R, Harniss M, Oderud T, et al. Assistive technology in resource-limited environments: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12:105–114.
  • Borg J, Östergren P-O. Users’ perspectives on the provision of assistive technologies in Bangladesh: awareness, providers, costs and barriers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10:301–308.
  • Nasr N, Leon B, Mountain G, et al. The experience of living with stroke and using technology: opportunities to engage and co-design with end users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;11:1–8.
  • Desideri L, Bizzarri M, Bitelli C, et al. Implementing a routine outcome assessment procedure to evaluate the quality of assistive technology service delivery for children with physical or multiple disabilities: perceived effectiveness, social cost, and user satisfaction. Assist Technol. 2016;28:30.
  • Federici S, Borsci S. Providing assistive technology in Italy: the perceived delivery process quality as affecting abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11:22.
  • De Jonge D, Layton N, Vicary F, et al. editors. Motivations and incentives: exploring assistive technology service delivery from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Arlington (VA): RESNA; 2015.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.