Surona Visagie1, Arne H Eide1,2, Hasheem Mannan3, Marguerite Schneider4, Leslie Swartz5, Gubela Mji1, Alister Munthali6, Mustafa Khogali7, Gert van Rooy8, Karl-Gerhard Hem2, Malcolm MacLachlan3. 1. a Centre for Rehabilitation studies, Stellenbosch University , Stellenbosch, South Africa. 2. b SINTEF Technology and Society , Oslo , Norway. 3. c Centre for Global Health, Trinity University College , Dublin , Ireland. 4. d Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Alan J Flisher Centre for Public Mental Health, University of Cape Town , South Africa. 5. e Department of Psycology, Stellenbosch University , Stellenbosch , South Africa. 6. f Centre for Social Research, University of Malawi , Zomba , Malawi. 7. g School of Medicine, Afhad University for Women , Omdurman , Sudan. 8. h Multidisciplinary Research Centre, University of Namibia , Windhoek , Namibia.
Abstract
Purpose statement: The article explores assistive technology sources, services and outcomes in South Africa, Namibia, Malawi and Sudan. METHODS: A survey was done in purposively selected sites of the study countries. Cluster sampling followed by random sampling served to identify 400-500 households (HHs) with members with disabilities per country. A HH questionnaire and individual questionnaire was completed. Country level analysis was limited to descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Walking mobility aids was most commonly bought/provided (46.3%), followed by visual aids (42.6%). The most common sources for assistive technology were government health services (37.8%), "other" (29.8%), and private health services (22.9%). Out of the participants, 59.3% received full information in how to use the device. Maintenance was mostly done by users and their families (37.3%). Devices helped a lot in 73.3% of cases and improved quality of life for 67.9% of participants, while 39.1% experienced functional difficulties despite the devices. CONCLUSION: Although there is variation between the study settings, the main impression is that of fragmented or absent systems of provision of assistive technology. Implications for rehabilitation Provision of assistive technology and services varied between countries, but the overall impression was of poor provision and fragmented services. The limited provision of assistive technology for personal care and handling products is of concern as many of these devices requires little training and ongoing support while they can make big functional differences. Rural respondents experienced more difficulties when using the device and received less information on use and maintenance of the device than their urban counterparts. A lack of government responsibility for assistive device services correlated with a lack of information and/or training of participants and maintenance of devices.
Purpose statement: The article explores assistive technology sources, services and outcomes in South Africa, Namibia, Malawi and Sudan. METHODS: A survey was done in purposively selected sites of the study countries. Cluster sampling followed by random sampling served to identify 400-500 households (HHs) with members with disabilities per country. A HH questionnaire and individual questionnaire was completed. Country level analysis was limited to descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Walking mobility aids was most commonly bought/provided (46.3%), followed by visual aids (42.6%). The most common sources for assistive technology were government health services (37.8%), "other" (29.8%), and private health services (22.9%). Out of the participants, 59.3% received full information in how to use the device. Maintenance was mostly done by users and their families (37.3%). Devices helped a lot in 73.3% of cases and improved quality of life for 67.9% of participants, while 39.1% experienced functional difficulties despite the devices. CONCLUSION: Although there is variation between the study settings, the main impression is that of fragmented or absent systems of provision of assistive technology. Implications for rehabilitation Provision of assistive technology and services varied between countries, but the overall impression was of poor provision and fragmented services. The limited provision of assistive technology for personal care and handling products is of concern as many of these devices requires little training and ongoing support while they can make big functional differences. Rural respondents experienced more difficulties when using the device and received less information on use and maintenance of the device than their urban counterparts. A lack of government responsibility for assistive device services correlated with a lack of information and/or training of participants and maintenance of devices.
Authors: Achilles Vairis; Suzana Brown; Maurice Bess; Kyu Hyun Bae; Jonathan Boyack Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rosemary Joan Gowran; Nathan Bray; Mary Goldberg; Paula Rushton; Marie Barhouche Abou Saab; David Constantine; Ritu Ghosh; Jonathan Pearlman Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Monica Jamali-Phiri; Ikenna D Ebuenyi; Emma M Smith; Juba Alyce Kafumba; Malcolm MacLachlan; Alister Munthali Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 3.390