Increased awareness, interest and use of assistive technology (AT) presents substantial opportunities for many citizens to become, or continue being, meaningful participants in society. However, there is a significant shortfall between the need for and provision of AT, and this is patterned by a range of social, demographic and structural factors. To seize the opportunity that assistive technology offers, regional, national and sub-national assistive technology policies are urgently required. This paper was developed for and through discussion at the Global Research, Innovation and Education on Assistive Technology (GREAT) Summit; organized under the auspices of the World Health Organization’s Global Collaboration on Assistive Technology (GATE) program. It outlines some of the key principles that AT polices should address and recognizes that AT policy should be tailored to the realities of the contexts and resources available. AT policy should be developed as a part of the evolution of related policy across a number of different sectors and should have clear and direct links to AT as mediators and moderators for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The consultation process, development and implementation of policy should be fully inclusive of AT users, and their representative organizations, be across the lifespan, and imbued with a strong systems-thinking ethos. Six barriers are identified which funnel and diminish access to AT and are addressed systematically within this paper. We illustrate an example of good practice through a case study of AT services in Norway, and we note the challenges experienced in less well-resourced settings. A number of economic factors relating to AT and economic arguments for promoting AT use are also discussed. To address policy-development the importance of active citizenship and advocacy, the need to find mechanisms to scale up good community practices to a higher level, and the importance of political engagement for the policy process, are highlighted. Policy should be evidence-informed and allowed for evidence-making; however, it is important to account for other factors within the given context in order for policy to be practical, authentic and actionable.

Background and Methods: This paper reviews the current capacity of personnel in enabling access to assistive technology (AT) as well as the systems and processes within which they work, and was reviewed, discussed, and refined during and following the Global Research, Innovation, and Education in Assistive Technology (GREAT) Summit. Findings: Key concepts addressed include a person-centred team approach; sustainability indicators to monitor, measure, and respond to needs for service design and delivery; education, research, and training for competent practice, using the six rehab-workforce challenges framework; and credentialing frameworks. We propose development of a competence framework and associated education and training programs, and development and implementation of a certification framework for AT personnel. Conclusions: There is a resolve to address the challenges faced by People globally to access assistive technology. Context specific needs assessment is required to understand the AT Personnel landscape, to shape and strengthen credentialing frameworks through competencies and certification, acknowledging both general and specific skill mix requirements.

Aim: The meaning of wheelchair and seating assistive technology and the impact inappropriate provision has on people’s lives from a service user’s perspective within an Irish context is highlighted. There is a dearth in evidence examining the process of wheelchair and seating provision and the interconnectedness between satisfaction, performance and participation from an equality and human rights perspective. The purpose if the study is to investigate wheelchair service users’ perspectives of wheelchair and seating provision in Ireland. Method: This is a mixed-methods study with an exploratory sequential design that includes two phases. During phase one, wheelchair service users were invited to take part in qualitative in-depth semi-structured interviews, which were thematically analysed and formed part of a larger ethnographic study involving multiple stakeholders in sustainable wheelchair and seating provision strategy development. In phase two, an online Survey Monkey questionnaire was distributed to obtain a wider overview of wheelchair service provision from a wheelchair service users perspective. Data obtained from the closed questions and content analysis for open comments was analysed descriptively for this phase. Results: Eight wheelchair service users agreed to participate in the interviews and 273 responded to the online survey. Thematic analysis and questionnaire frequency and content analysis revealed the vital meaning of wheelchair and seating assistive technology provision. However, bottlenecks within the system affect daily living, with qualitative data highlighting the obstruction to experiences of independent living from initial appointment to wheelchair breakdowns during daily life. Conclusion: Appropriate wheelchair and seating assistive technology provision is a basic human right, supported by the essential and embodied nature of the wheelchair as demonstrated through the wheelchair service users’ perspective throughout this study. These findings highlight the impact of ad-hoc services on individual freedoms and how the overall pace of the system affects a person’s ability to organise their time as an equal member of the community across the lifespan. A national review of wheelchair and seating assistive technology provision services is called for, giving consideration to access to services, assessment and delivery, follow up and management, education and training.

Purpose: Improving access to education and training for those providing wheelchair and seating assistive technology to meet personal posture and mobility requirements, as a basic human right, is a priority. This review considers education and training available to personnel within low and lower middle income countries (LLMIC), to ascertain where gaps in knowledge exist and identify human resource education priorities. Method: A scoping review, mapping out existing scientific and grey literature within the field between 1993 and 2017 was conducted. The search strategy included use of online databases, manual analogue searches and key stakeholder informant advice. A content analysis process was applied to organize the literature retrieved and extract key themes. Results: Education and training in LLMIC appears ad hoc and limited, however, there is growing recognition as to its importance, notably by the World Health Organization and nongovernmental organizations, delivering education initiatives to a number of countries, along with the development of a credentialing test. Inconsistency exists regarding personnel responsible for wheelchair provision, with no specific professional clearly recognized to oversee the system within many LLMIC. Conclusions: Education and training is required for all stakeholders involved in wheelchair provision. Advocating for programme development to enhance personnel skills, build capacity and ensure best practice is a priority. Pilot sites, delivering and credentialing appropriate wheelchair provision education and training within context should be considered. Measuring outcomes and transferable skills should be part of education programme delivery structures. Considering a new discipline responsible for oversight of wheelchair provision should be investigated.

Introduction: Every aspect of the wheelchair and seating provision process has an impact on overall outcomes for service users. This critical appraisal sought to identify outcome measures suitable for evaluation of wheelchair and seating provision, considering activity, participation, and impact of the service delivery on quality of life. Method: Outcome measures were identified using databases: Medline, CINHAL, PsychInfo, and Google Scholar. An evaluation was conducted to establish those that were particularly useful and a critical appraisal was completed. Findings: Five outcome measures identified as relevant for critical appraisal included: Wheelchair Outcome Measure; Functioning Every day in a Wheelchair; Goal Attainment Scale; Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scales; and the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology. The strengths and limitations of each were identified. Conclusion: No single outcome measure captures all necessary information; trade-offs are inevitable. When choosing an outcome measure, the specific goals of the service evaluation and the resources available need to be considered within context. Critical appraisal of five outcome measures deemed appropriate for the evaluation highlighted some areas for consideration to inform decision making. A move towards sustainability indicators is suggested to monitor, measure, and respond to the provision processes and outcomes required to meet this primary need.

This study explores people living with spinal cord injury (SCI) experiences and perspectives of wheelchair and seating assistive technology service provision within an Irish context. There are few ...