Challenges of user-centred assistive technology provision in Australia: shopping without a prescription

References

• Borg J, Larsson S, Östergren PO, et al. User involvement in service delivery predicts outcomes of assistive technology use: a cross-sectional study in Bangladesh. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:330
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsaesser L-J, Bauer S. Provision of assistive technology services method (ATSM) according to evidence-based information and knowledge management. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011;6:386–401
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• World Health Organisation. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2001
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, et al. A conceptual framework of outcomes for caregivers of assistive technology users. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2009;88:645–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Canberra; 2013 Available from: www.aihw.gov.au/introduction-to-disability-and-disability-services-in-australia/ [last accessed 21 Mar 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Pearson J, O'Brien K, Hill S, Moore D. Research for the national disability agreement aids and equipment reform: final report. Canberra: FaHCSIA; 2013
   Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Harris F, Taugher M, Smith RO. Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2013;8:373–80
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• United Nations. Convention on the rights of people with disabilities and optional protocol. Geneva: United Nations; 2006
   Google Scholar
• National People with Disabilities and Carers Council. Shut out: the experience of people with disabilities and their families in Australia – National Disability Strategy Consultation Report. Canberra: Commonwealth Government; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Polgar JM, eds. Cook and Hussey's assistive technologies: principles and practice. 3rd ed. St Louis (MO): Mosby Elsevier; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Andrich R, Mathiassen N-E, Hoogerwerf E-J, Gelderblom GJ. Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: an AAATE/EASTIN position paper. Technol Disabil 2013;25:127–46
   Google Scholar
• AT Collaboration; 2009. Available from: www.at.org.au [last accessed 21 Mar 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Waldron D, Layton N. Hard and soft assistive technologies: defining roles for clinicians. Aust Occup Therap J 2008;55:61–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahm EA, Sizemore L. Factors that influence assistive technology decision making. J Special Educ Technol 2002;17:15–26
   Google Scholar
• Lindqvist E, Nygard L, Borell L. Significant junctures on the way towards becoming a user of assistive technology in Alzheimer's disease. Scand J Occup Ther 2013;20:386–96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Layton N, Wilson E, Colgan S, et al. The equipping inclusion studies: assistive technology use and outcomes in Victoria. Melbourne: Deakin University; 2010
   Google Scholar
• de Jonge DM, Layton N, Vicary F. Keynote address a fresh analysis of the AT system in Australia: listening to and understanding the perspectives of stakeholders in order to meet AT users expectations. NSW ILC Conference; Parramatta; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Layton N, Wilson E. Re-conceptualizing disability and assistive technology: Australian consumers driving policy change. Technol Disabil 2009;21:135–41
   Google Scholar
• Gramstad A, Storli SL, Hamran T. “Do I need it? Do I really need it?” Elderly peoples experiences of unmet assistive technology device needs. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2013;8:287–93
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aids and Equipment Action Alliance. Melbourne; 2013. Available from: www.aeaa.org.au [last accessed 21 March 2014]
   Google Scholar
• National Aids and Equipment Reform Alliance. National Aids and Equipment Reform Alliance Foundation Document; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Queensland Competition Authority. Draft report: medical and disability aids and equipment price disparities. Brisbane: Queensland Competition Authority; 2013
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. The change in emphasis from people to person: introduction to the special issue on assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:1–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. Guidelines on the provision of manual wheelchairs in less resourced settings. Geneva; 2008. Report nr 978 92 4 154748 2
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation, World Bank. The World Report on Disability. Geneva; 2011
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Jutai JW, Fuhrer MJ, et al. A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007;2:1–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elston MA. The politics of professional power: medicine in a changing health service. In: Bury M, Calnan M, Gabe J, eds. The sociology of the health service. London: Routledge; 1991:58–88
   Google Scholar
• Townsend E, Galipeault JP, Gliddon K, et al. Reflections on power and justice in enabling occupation. Can J Occup Ther 2003;70:74–87
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Trostle JA. Medical compliance as an ideology. Soc Sci Med 1988;27:1299–308
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wielandt T, Strong J. Compliance with prescribed adaptive equipment: a literature review. Brit J Occup Ther 2000;63:65–75
   Google Scholar
• Ripat J, Booth A. Characteristics of assistive technology service delivery models: stakeholder perspectives and preferences. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:1461–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hocking C. Function or feelings: factors in abandonment of assistive devices. Technol Disabil 1999;11:3–11
   Google Scholar
• Steel EJ, Gelderblom GJ, de Witte LP. The role of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health and quality criteria for improving assistive technology service delivery in Europe. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2012;91:S55–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Miller WC. The wheelchair procurement process: perspectives of clients and prescribers. Can J Occup Ther 2008;75:167–75
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hammel J, Southall K, Jutai JW, et al. Evaluating use and outcomes of mobility technology: a multiple stakeholder analysis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2013;8:294–304
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol 1993;5:36–45
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peterson DB, Murray GC. Ethics and assistive technology service provision. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2006;1:59–67
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Department of Health. Evaluating the transforming community equipment pilots. London; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Steel EJ, de Witte LP. Advances in European assistive technology service delivery and recommendations for further improvement. Technol Disabil 2011;23:131–8
   Google Scholar
• Dahlin Ivanoff S, Iwarsson S, Sonn U. Occupational therapy research on assistive technology and physical environmental issues: a literature review. Can J Occup Ther 2006;73:109–19
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Friederich A, Bernd T, De Witte L. Methods for the selection of assistive technology in neurological rehabilitation practice. Scand J Occup Ther 2010;17:308–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sund T, Iwarsson S, Andersen MC, Brandt A. Documentation of and satisfaction with the service delivery process of electric powered scooters among adult users in different national contexts. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2013;8:151–60
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martin JK, Martin LG, Stumbo NJ, Morrill JH. The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011;6:225–42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maceachen E, Kosny A, Ferrier S, et al. The ideal of consumer choice in social services: challenges with implementation in an Ontario injured worker vocational retraining programme. Disabil Rehabil 2013;35:2171–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strong G, Jutai J, Plotkin A, Bevers P, eds. Competitive enablement: a consumer-oriented approach to device selection in device-assisted vision rehabilitation. 4th International Conference on Aging, Disability and Independence; IOS Press; 2008:175
   Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Dyck I. Power and client-centred practice: an insider exploration of occupational therapists' experiences. Can J Occup Ther 2006;73:261–71
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andrich R, Besio S. Being informed, demanding and responsible consumers of assistive technology: an educational issue. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:152–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motivation Australia; 2013. Available from: www.motivation.org.au/get-involved/17-volunteering/122-peer-mentoring-volunteers-fiji-2014.html [last accessed 4 Dec 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Johnston P, Currie LM, Drynan D, et al. Getting it “right”: how collaborative relationships between people with disabilities and professionals can lead to the acquisition of needed assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2014 . [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.3109/17483107.2014.900574
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O'Sullivan C. Five-year review of the Technology Liaison Service in rural & urban communities. In: Craddock G, McCormack L, Reilly R, Knops H, eds. Assistive technology – shaping the future. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2003:317–22
   Google Scholar
• Hill S. The knowledgeable patient: communication and participation in health (A Cochrane handbook). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2011
   Google Scholar
• Bernd T, Van Der Pijl D, De Witte LP. Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice. Scand J Occup Ther 2009;16:146–58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsaesser L-J, Bauer S. Integrating medical, assistive, and universal design products and technologies: assistive technology service method (ATSM). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2012;7:282–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Löfqvist C, Nygren C, Széman Z, Iwarsson S. Assistive devices among very old people in five European countries. Scand J Occup Ther 2005;12:181–92
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roelands M, Van Oost P, Depoorter AM, et al. Introduction of assistive devices: home nurses' practices and beliefs. J Adv Nurs 2006;54:180–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamble MJ, Dowler DL, Hirsh AE. Informed decision making on assistive technology workplace accommodations for people with visual impairments. Work 2004;23:123–30
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Living in the state of stuck: how assistive technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. Cambridge (MA): Brookline Books; 2000
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin NR, Nelson JA, Ackerman F, Weisskopf T. Microeconomics in context. New York: ME Sharpe; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Assistive Technology Suppliers Australasia. Submission to the Queensland Competition Authority's Medical and Disability Aids and Equipment Pricing Investigation. 2013. Available from: www.atsa.org.au/Portals/0/ATSA%20QCA%20PriceInvestigation%20Submission20130930.pdf [last accessed 9 Jul 2014
   Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick RB. AbleData: a resource of assistive technology information. Med Ref Serv Q 2010;29:260–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bauer S, Elsaesser L-J, Arthanat S. Assistive technology device classification based upon the World Health Organization's, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011;6:243–59
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jutai JW, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, et al. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:294–302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Disabled Living Foundation. London: Disabled Living Foundation; 2014 Available from: http://asksara.dlf.org.uk [last accessed 21 Mar 2014]
   Google Scholar