Publications

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the practices of repair that exist for users of mobility assistive products in low resource settings, as well as the psychosocial impact that the repair, or non-repair, of these devices has on users’ lives.

Materials and Methods

This article collates data on repair practices and the responses from participants on the topic of repair from studies conducted by the authors across four different low resource settings in Kenya, Uganda, Sierra Leone, and Indonesia. This data was then analyzed to identify the common themes found across geographies.

Results

Three major models of repair practice emerged from the data: “Individual or Informal Repair in the Community”; “Local Initiatives”; and “Specialist AT Workshop Repair”. Additionally, the wider impact on the participants’ lives of “Problems & Concerns with Repair”; “Experiences of Breakages & Frequencies of Repair” and the “Impact of Broken Devices” are explored.

Conclusions

The results of this analysis demonstrate the paramount importance of community-based repair of devices, and how despite this importance, repair is often overlooked in the planning and design of assistive products and services. There is a need to further incorporate and support these informal contributions as part of the formal provision systems of assistive device.

Ben Oldfrey, Cathy Holloway, Julian Walker, Steven McCormack, Bernadette Deere, Laurence Kenney, Robert Ssekitoleko, Helen Ackers & Mark Miodownik (2023) Repair strategies for assistive technology in low resource settings, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2023.2236142

Purpose

Explicitly monitoring the need, use and satisfaction of assistive product (AP) provision is essential to support population health and healthy longevity in ageing/aged countries, like Korea. We present findings from the 2017 Korea National Disability Survey (NDS) on AP access and compare them to international averages, introducing Korea’s data into the wider coherence of global AP research.

Materials and methods

Using data from Korea’s 2017 NDS, surveying 91,405 individuals, we extracted and calculated AP access indicators, including needing, having, using and being satisfied with 76 unique APs, by functional difficulty and product type. We compared satisfaction and unmet need between the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) and alternative provision services.

Results

Prosthetics and orthotics had high rates of under-met need, and lower satisfaction rates, from 46.9% to 80.9%. Mobility APs overall had higher rates of under-met need. There was either low (<5%) or no reported need for most digital/technical APs. Among main products, those provided through the NHIS had lower unmet need (26.4%) than through alternative providers (63.1%), though satisfaction rates were similar (p < .001).

Conclusions

The Korean survey findings align with global averages calculated in the Global Report on Assistive Technology. Low reported needs for certain APs may reflect low awareness about how these products could benefit users, emphasizing the importance of data collection at each stage of the AP provision process. Recommendations to expand access to APs are given for people, personnel, provision, products, and policy.

Implications for rehabilitation

• Access to assistive products (APs) is an essential part of physical and occupational therapy services and rehabilitation. Monitoring population-level data on disability and AP access can inform policymakers about a key aspect of population health and healthy ageing, and demonstrate the need to expand access by including APs and associated services in primary/universal healthcare packages.
• Stratifying findings about AP access by type of functional difficulty and further by specific device helps identify the populations for whom needs are not being met. These domain-level and device-level indicators inform efforts to support specific groups within the population of people with disabilities, which has implications for how rehabilitation services are provisioned, targeted and made more accessible.

Jamie Danemayer & Myung-Joon Lim (2023)

Assistive technology in Korea: Findings from the 2017 National Disability Survey, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology,

DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2023.2225565

Assistive technology is a critical component of maintaining health, wellbeing, and the realization of rights for persons with disabilities. Assistive technologies, and their associated services, are also paramount to ensuring individuals with functional limitations have access to important health and social service information, particularly during a pandemic where they may be at higher risk than the general population. Social isolation and physical distancing have further marginalized many within this population. We have an opportunity to learn from the COVID-19response to develop more inclusive and resilient systems that will serve people with disabilities more effectively in the future. In this Current Issues piece, we present a starting point for discussion, based on our experiences working to promote access to assistive technologies through inclusive and sustainable systems and policies.

Emma M. Smith, Malcolm MacLachlan, Ikenna D. Ebuenyi, Catherine Holloway & Victoria Austin (2021) Developing inclusive and resilient systems: COVID-19 and assistive technology, Disability & Society, 36:1, 151-154, DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2020.1829558

Amartya Sen’s seminal Tanner lecture: Equality of What? began a contestation on social justice and human wellbeing that saw a new human development paradigm emerge—the capability approach (CA)—which has been influential ever since. Following interviews with leading global assistive technology (AT) stakeholders, and users, this paper takes inspiration from Sen’s core question and posits, AT for what? arguing that AT should be understood as a mechanism to achieve the things that AT users’ value. Significantly, our research found no commonly agreed operational global framework for (disability) justice within which leading AT stakeholders were operating. Instead, actors were loosely aligned through funding priorities and the CRPD. We suggest that this raises the possibility for (welcome and needed) incoming actors to diverge from efficiently designed collective action, due to perverse incentives enabled by unanchored interventions. The Global Report on Assistive Technology (GReAT) helps, greatly! However, we find there are still vital gaps in coordination; as technology advances, and AT proliferates, no longer can the device-plus-service approach suffice. Rather, those of us interested in human flourishing might explore locating AT access within an operational global framework for disability justice, which recognizes AT as a mechanism to achieve broader aims, linked to people’s capabilities to choose what they can do and be.

Austin, V.; Holloway, C. Assistive Technology (AT), for What? Societies 2022, 12, 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc120...

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education has been said to have the potential for building more personalised curricula, as well as democratising education worldwide and creating a Renaissance of new ways of teaching and learning. Millions of students are already starting to benefit from the use of these technologies, but millions more around the world are not. If this trend continues, the first delivery of AI in Education could be greater educational inequality, along with a global misallocation of educational resources motivated by the current technological determinism narrative. In this paper, we focus on speculating and posing questions around the future of AI in Education, with the aim of starting the pressing conversation that would set the right foundations for the new generation of education that is permeated by technology. This paper starts by synthesising how AI might change how we learn and teach, focusing specifically on the case of personalised learning companions, and then move to discuss some socio-technical features that will be crucial for avoiding the perils of these AI systems worldwide (and perhaps ensuring their success). This paper also discusses the potential of using AI together with free, participatory and democratic resources, such as Wikipedia, Open Educational Resources and open-source tools. We also emphasise the need for collectively designing human-centered, transparent, interactive and collaborative AI-based algorithms that empower and give complete agency to stakeholders, as well as support new emerging pedagogies. Finally, we ask what would it take for this educational revolution to provide egalitarian and empowering access to education, beyond any political, cultural, language, geographical and learning ability barriers.