Challenges and Barriers in Assistive Technology and the Scale for Their Assessment: A Global and Indian Perspective
Main Article Content
Abstract
Assistive Technology (AT) plays a critical role in enabling independence, participation, and rehabilitation for persons with disabilities. However, current access rates remain critically low, with only 5-10% of individuals in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) receiving the assistive products they need. This paper examines the multidimensional challenges and barriers hindering access of AT globally and in India, including policy gaps, economic constraints, service delivery limitations, and social stigma. Furthermore, it reviews existing assessment scales and frameworks such as WHO-GReAT, QUEST, PIADS, and the ATLAS framework that can systematically evaluate these barriers. The findings underscore the urgent need for comprehensive AT policies, standardized assessment tools, and inclusive implementation strategies to realize assistive technology as a fundamental right rather than a privilege and charity.
Keywords: Assistive Technology; Barriers in Assistive Technology; Health Equity; Assessment in Assistive Technology
Downloads
Article Details
Section
How to Cite
References
1. World Health Organization. Global report on assistive technology. Geneva: WHO; 2022.
2. World Health Organization. Priority assistive products list. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
3. Borg J, Lindström A, Larsson S. Assistive technology in developing countries: National and international responsibilities to implement the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Lancet. 2011;374(9704):1863-5.
4. Tebbutt E, Brodmann R, Borg J, MacLachlan M, Khasnabis C, Horvath R. Assistive products and the SDGs. Glob Health. 2016;12(1):79.
5. Layton N, Steel EJ, Foster M, Bennett S. AT as a human rights and public health issue. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(9):3160.
6. Holloway C, Austin V, Barbareschi G, Ramos VD, Gupte R. The AT gap in low-resource settings. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(18):3338.
7. Boot FH, MacLachlan M, Dinsmore J. Outcome measures in AT research. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(4):263-71.
8. Smith RO. Measuring AT outcomes in rehabilitation. Assist Technol. 2017;29(1):1-2.
9. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0). Assist Technol. 2000;12(2):96-105.
10. Jutai J, Day H. Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technol Disabil. 2002;14(3):107-11.
11. Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching Person and Technology (MPT) model. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(1-3):6-14.
12. MacLachlan M, Banes D, Bell D, Borg J, Donnelly B, Fembek M, et al. Assistive technology policy: A position paper from the first global research, innovation, and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):454-66.
13. Khasnabis C, Mines K, MacLachlan M. Assistive technology: WHO policy framework. Geneva: WHO; 2015.
14. MacLachlan M, Banes D, Bell D, Borg J, et al. Assistive technology policy: a position paper. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):473-85.
15. de Witte L, Steel E, Gupta S, Ramos VD, Roentgen U. Assistive technology provision: toward an international framework. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):467-72.
16. Auger C, Demers L. AT outcomes in community settings. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(10):1518-24.
17. Sørensen J, Andersen S, Nielsen CV. Costs and access barriers in AT services. Health Policy. 2020;124:293-9.
18. Matter R, Harniss M, Oderud T, Borg J, Eide AH. Assistive technology in resource-limited settings: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(2):105-14.
19. Steel EJ, Layton N, Foster M. Global inequity in AT access. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(11):5813.
20. Borg J, Lindström A, Larsson S. Barriers to and facilitators of the provision of assistive technology. Scand J Occup Ther. 2011;18(2):177-87.
21. Borg J, Ostergren PO. Users' perspectives on AT provision: a cross-sectional study. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(1):1-8.
22. Oderud T. AT delivery systems in LMICs: challenges and opportunities. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;38(5):380-9.
23. DeRuyter F. Evaluating AT service outcomes. Assist Technol. 1997;9(1):47-61.
24. Parette HP, Scherer MJ. Assistive technology use and stigma. Educ Train Dev Disabil. 2004;39(3):217-26.
25. Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of AT abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5(1):36-45.
26. Cook AM, Polgar JM. Assistive technologies: principles and practice. 4th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2014.
27. Scherer MJ. Living in the state of stuck: How assistive technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. Brookline Books; 2005.
28. Borg J, Larsson S, Östergren PO. Barriers to AT in low-income countries. Technol Disabil. 2012;24(3):139-48.
29. Gowran RJ, et al. Challenges in wheelchair provision. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):423-9.
30. Visagie S, Eide AH, Mannan H, Schneider M, et al. AT access barriers in Africa. Afr J Disabil. 2017;6:1-10.
31. Whiteneck GG, Harrison-Felix C, Mellick D, Brooks CA, Charlifue SB, Gerhart KA. Quantifying environmental factors: A measure of physical, attitudinal, service, productivity, and policy barriers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(8)1324-35.
32. Day H, Jutai J, Campbell KA. Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: PIADS. Technol Disabil. 2002;14(3):107-11.
33. Scherer MJ, Jutai JW. The Assistive Technology Device Predisposition Assessment (ATD-PA). Assist Technol. 1994;6(1):1-15.
34. Federici S, Meloni F, Borsci S. The Assistive Technology Assessment (ATA) model. Technol Disabil. 2016;28(1-2):27-38.
35. Lenker JA, Paquet VL. Psychometric evaluation of AT outcome measures. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2004;26(1):57-64.
36. Ripat J, Booth A. Measuring AT participation outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2005;27(3):139-48.