Selection of assistive technology for young children is a complex process. Within a context with limited resources, such as South Africa, research is needed to determine the factors influencing the assistive technology selection process, as these could ultimately either facilitate or hinder the availability and accessibility of affordable, adaptable, acceptable, and high quality assistive technology for this age group. Two asynchronous online focus groups were conducted with 16 rehabilitation professionals to identify the factors they perceived to influence the selection and provision of assistive technology to young children within the South African context. A process of deductive thematic analysis was followed by inductive analysis of the data. Components of the Assistive Technology Device Selection Framework were used as themes to guide the deductive analysis, followed by inductive analysis to create subthemes. The important role of the professional was highlighted in negotiating all the factors to consider in the assistive technology selection and provision process. Adaptation of the Assistive Technology Device Selection Framework is suggested in order to facilitate application to low resourced contexts, such as South Africa. Implications for rehabilitation Assistive technology selection is a complex process with factors pertaining to the users (child and family) of the assistive technology, as well as the rehabilitation professional recommending the assistive technology influencing the process. Although it may be an important factor, the availability of financial resources to purchase assistive technology is not the only determining factor in providing appropriate assistive technology to young children in contexts with limited resources. Formalized support, such as reflective supervision or mentorship programs should be facilitated and utilized by recommending professionals. Home and school visits during assessment ensure a good match between assistive technology and users within the particular context. Facilitating the availability of assistive technology for trial during assessment and/or for a period afterwards will increase the likelihood that appropriate recommendations for assistive technology are made.

Background: Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) can assist persons with complex communication needs to communicate competently with a variety of communication partners in a variety of contexts. However, AAC systems and intervention often do not take multilingual aspects into consideration.Objective: This small-scale exploratory study had three aims, namely: (1) to describe the self-reported language skills of multilingual South African adults using AAC, (2) to describe the languages and communication modalities they used in interaction and (3) to obtain their views regarding access to various languages.Methods: Twenty-seven adults using AAC were recruited via an empowerment programme, as well as an email list for persons interested in AAC, and provided responses to a questionnaire. To compensate for access and written language challenges, the questionnaire was administered with help and/or as a face-to-face interview where needed. Responses were analysed using mostly descriptive statistics.Results: Participants generally could not express themselves in all the languages they understood and were regularly exposed to. Speech-generating devices specifically gave access almost exclusively to English. Participants expressed a desire to increase their expressive language repertoire, and mentioned both limitations of communication technology as well as their own literacy skills as barriers to overcome in this regard.Conclusion: In order for multilingual South African adults using AAC to express themselves in multiple languages, appropriate AAC systems and interventions as well as literacy learning opportunities need to be developed and provided.

Purpose: Based on the bioecological model by Bronfenbrenner, this paper will provide a broad perspective on factors that need to be taken into account in order to facilitate communication and participation in preliterate children making use of electronic Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) systems accessed through eye gaze. Method: Two case studies of children who have been provided with the technology described are presented. The case studies were analysed using the four nested systems of the ecology as a framework to describe not only the environment, but also the processes and interactions between the persons and their context. Results: Risk and opportunity factors are evident at all levels of the ecology. Conclusions: While a good fit between the person and the technology is an essential starting point, additional factors pertaining to the partner, the immediate environment as well as meso-, exo- and macrosystemic issues (such as societal attitudes and funding sources) have a significant influence on benefits derived. In resource-limited environments, the lack of support at more distal levels of the ecology (meso-, exo- and marosystemic levels) seems to be a factor that differentiates these environments from more resourced ones.

Background: The use of Assistive Technology (AT) by children with disabilities has been associated with significant development and improvement in outcomes within all spheres of life. However, AT is often underutilized. Appropriate selection of AT by rehabilitation professionals could improve the satisfaction of the user and their family with their AT. Data sources: A systematic search identified six studies that investigate the factors that occupational therapists, physiotherapists, as well as speech and language pathologists perceive to influence their provision of AT to children. Study appraisal: Two qualitative and four quantitative articles were identified. Both article types were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal tool (Pluye etal., 2011). Synthesis method: A process of deductive thematic analysis by using themes from the Assistive Technology Device Selection Framework (Scherer etal., 2007), was followed by inductive thematic analysis to uncover subthemes. Data from all six articles are synthesized to provide a view of factors that are perceived to influence AT selection. Implications of findings: Within a family-centered perspective, both family and child expectations and preferences should be considered. Professionals should consider the influence of their own preferences and knowledge on the AT they recommend.

In a low-and middle-income country (LMIC) such as South Africa, not much is known about how children with intellectual disabilities (ID) participate in everyday activities, as no studies to date have compared their participation to peers without ID from the same background. Using a newly developed, contextually valid measure of participation, Picture my Participation (PmP), 106 children with (73) and without ID (33), rated their frequency of participation in activities of daily living. Previous international research has established that children with ID tend to participate less frequently than children without ID in everyday activities outside of the school setting. However, much of this research is based on proxy ratings from caregivers rather than children with ID themselves. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests children with disabilities have uniquely different views of their own participation than their caregivers. The existing research evidence is also delimited to studies conducted predominantly in high income contexts (HICSs). Since it is universally acknowledged that participation patterns are affected by the environment, it is important to evaluate the generalizability of the current evidence to LMICs. The current study found that there were many similar patterns of participation between the two groups although significant differences were noted in social, community, leisure and self-care activities. We compare these results to findings from studies conducted in HICs and find that there are similarities but also differences across contexts. This study highlights the importance of gaining a child’s perspective of participation and understanding how intellectual disability can affect participation relative to peers without ID in LMICS.