Barriers and Facilitators to Community Mobility for Assistive Technology Users

Mobility is frequently described in terms of individual body function and structures however contemporary views of disability also recognise the role of environment in creating disability. Aim. To identify consumer perspectives regarding barriers and facilitators to optimal mobility for a heterogeneous population of impaired Victorians who use assistive technology in their daily lives. Method. An accessible survey investigated the impact of supports or facilitators upon actual and desired life outcomes and health-related quality of life, from 100 AT users in Victoria, Australia. This paper reports upon data pertaining to community mobility. Results. A range of barriers and enablers to community mobility were identified including access to AT devices, environmental interventions, public transport, and inclusive community environs. Substantial levels of unmet need result in limited personal mobility and community participation. Outcomes fall short of many principles enshrined in current policy and human rights frameworks. Conclusion. AT devices as well as accessible and inclusive home and community environs are essential to maximizing mobility for many. Given the impact of the environment upon the capacity of individuals to realise community mobility, this raises the question as to whether rehabilitation practitioners, as well as prescribing AT devices, should work to build accessible communities via systemic advocacy.

[1]  Albert M. Cook,et al.  Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice , 1995 .

[2]  N. Oldridge.  Outcomes measurement: health-related quality of life. , 1996, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[3]  M H Rioux,et al.  Disability: the place of judgement in a world of fact. , 1997, Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR.

[4]  Edward Steinfeld,et al.  Enabling environments : measuring the impact of environment on disability and rehabiltation , 1999 .

[5]  D. Fouarge.  Costs of non-social policy: towards an economic framework of quality social policies - and the costs of not having them , 2003 .

[6]  J. Swain.  Disabling Barriers, Enabling Environments , 2004 .

[7]  R. Osborne,et al.  The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of Health-Related Quality of Life , 1999, Quality of Life Research.

[8]  G. Whiteneck,et al.  Quantifying environmental factors: a measure of physical, attitudinal, service, productivity, and policy barriers. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[9]  Roger O. Smith,et al.  Assistive Technology in the Measurement of Rehabilitation and Health Outcomes: A Review and Analysis of Instruments , 2005, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[10]  R. Osborne,et al.  Population norms and meaningful differences for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) measure , 2005, Australian and New Zealand journal of public health.

[11]  B. Lutz,et al.  Disability in Everyday Life , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[12]  E. Wilson.  Defining and measuring the outcomes of inclusive community for people with disability, their families and the communities with whom they engage , 2006 .

[13]  T. Shakespeare,et al.  Disability Rights and Wrongs , 2009 .

[14]  Natasha A Layton,et al.  Occupational therapy without borders: Learning from the spirit of survivors , 2006 .

[15]  Oliver Lewis,et al.  United Nations Convention and Optional Protocol on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities : Introductory Note , 2007 .

[16]  Carol Thomas.  Sociologies of Disability and Illness , 2007 .

[17]  F. Heywood,et al.  Better outcomes, lower costs: implications for health and social care budgets of investment in housing adaptations, improvements and equipment - a review of the evidence , 2007 .

[18]  Hua Dong.  Shifting Paradigms in Universal Design , 2007, HCI.

[19]  K. Joseph.  Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and Research , 2007 .

[20]  Carol Thomas,et al.  Sociologies of Disability and Illness: Contested Ideas in Disability Studies and Medical Sociology , 2007 .

[21]  Ir. Theo Bougie.  ISO 9999 Assistive Products for Persons with Disability: Classification and Terminology , 2008 .

[22]  Michael Curtin,et al.  Gatekeepers or advocates? Occupational therapists and equipment funding schemes. , 2008, Australian occupational therapy journal.

[23]  T. Shakespeare,et al.  Disability: Suffering, Social Oppression, or Complex Predicament? , 2008 .

[24]  Joy Wee,et al.  Factors affecting measures of activities and participation in persons with mobility impairment , 2009, Disability and rehabilitation.

[25]  Natasha Layton,et al.  Re-conceptualizing disability and assistive technology: Australian consumers driving policy change , 2010 .

[26]  Natasha Layton,et al.  Comparative effectiveness report: online survey tools , 2010, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[27]  Desleigh de Jonge,et al.  Economics of Inclusiveness: Can We as a Society Afford Not to Provide Assistive Technology or Use Universal Design? , 2010 .

[28]  Natasha Layton,et al.  The equipping inclusion studies : assistive technology use and outcomes in Victoria ; key findings and policy recommendations , 2010 .

[29]  Member States,et al.  Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol , 2012 .

[30]  C. Vega,et al.  Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol , 2013 .