Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Rehabilitation Research and Practice
Volume 2012, Article ID 454195, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/454195
Research Article

Barriers and Facilitators to Community Mobility for Assistive Technology Users

School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia

Received 25 April 2012; Revised 13 July 2012; Accepted 15 July 2012

Academic Editor: K. S. Sunnerhagen

Copyright © 2012 Natasha Layton. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. B. J. Lutz and B. J. Bowers, “Disability in everyday life,” Qualitative Health Research, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1037–1054, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 2008.
  3. K. L. Rust and R. O. Smith, “Assistive technology in the measurement of rehabilitation and health outcomes: a review and analysis of instruments,” American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 84, no. 10, pp. 780–793, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  4. N. B. Oldridge, “Outcomes measurement: health-related quality of life,” Assistive Technology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 82–93, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. G. Hawthorne, J. Richardson, and R. Osborne, “The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life,” Quality of Life Research, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 209–224, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. H. Rioux, “Disability: the place of judgement in a world of fact,” Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 102–111, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, and C. Thomas, Eds., Disabling Barriers—Enabling Environments, Sage, London, Uk, 2004.
  8. C. Barnes and G. Mercer, Eds., Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and Research Leeds, The Disability Press, 2004.
  9. T. Shakespeare, Disability Rights and Wrongs, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2006.
  10. T. Shakespeare, “Disability: suffering, social oppression, or complex predicament,” in The Contingent Nature of Life: Bioethics and Limits of Human Existence, C. Rehmann-Sutter and D. Mieth, Eds., pp. 235–246, Springer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  11. C. Thomas, Sociologies of Disability and Illness: Contested Ideas in Disability Studies and Medical Sociology, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, 2007.
  12. World Health Organisation, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland, 2001.
  13. G. G. Whiteneck, C. L. Harrison-Felix, D. C. Mellick, C. A. Brooks, S. B. Charlifue, and K. A. Gerhart, “Quantifying environmental factors: a measure of physical, attitudinal, service, productivity, and policy barriers,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 85, no. 8, pp. 1324–1335, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. Commonwealth of Australia, National Disability Strategy 2010–2020, 2011.
  15. State Government of Victoria, Victorian State Disability Plan, Disability Service Division, Victorian Government Department of Human Services, Melbourne, Australia, 2002.
  16. United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  17. R. O. Smith, IMPACT 2 MODEL, 2009, http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/archive/impact2model.html, 2002.
  18. A. Cook and S. Hussey, Eds., Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice, vol. 3, Mosby Elsevier, St. Louis, Mo, USA, 2008.
  19. N. Layton and E. Wilson, “Re-conceptualizing disability and assistive technology: Australian consumers driving policy change,” Technology and Disability, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 135–141, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  20. Audit Commission, 2002, Fully Equipped: assisting Independence, http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/.
  21. A. Molenda, “Equipped for living literature review: identify the monetary benefit to individuals and government of assistive technology,” Journal of Independent Living Centres Australia, vol. 22, pp. 21–23, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  22. AAATE, “AAATE position paper: a 2003 view on technology and disability,” in Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe (AAATE '03), 2003.
  23. F. Heywood and L. Turner, Better Outcomes, Lower Costs: Implications for Health and Social Care Budgets of Investment in Housing Adaptations, Improvements and Equipment: a Review of the Evidence, University of Bristol Office for Disability Issues, Bristol, UK, 2007.
  24. N. Layton, E. Wilson, S. Colgan, M. Moodie, and R. Carter, The Equipping Inclusion Studies: Assistive Technology Use and Outcomes in Victoria, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia, 2010.
  25. A. T. Collaboration, 2009, Assistive Technology-Economics Collaboration, http://www.at.org.au.
  26. AEAA, Aids and Equipment Action Alliance, Melbourne, Australia, 2006.
  27. E. Wilson, “Defining and measuring the outcomes of inclusive community for people with disability, their families and the communities with whom they engage,” in From Ideology to Reality: Current Issues in Implementation of Intellectual Disability Policy: Proceedings of the Roundtable on Intellectual Disability Policy, C. Bigby, C. Fyffe, and J. Mansell, Eds., pp. 24–33, LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Australia, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  28. D. Gottliebson, N. Layton, and E. Wilson, “Comparative effectiveness report: online survey tools,” Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 401–410, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. ISO 9999, Assistive Products for Persons with Disability—Classification and Terminology, ISO, 2007.
  30. G. Hawthorne and R. Osborne, “Population norms and meaningful differences for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) measure,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 136–142, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. A. Barbara and M. Curtin, “Gatekeepers or advocates? Occupational therapists and equipment funding schemes,” Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 57–60, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. J. Wee and R. Lysaght, “Factors affecting measures of activities and participation in persons with mobility impairment,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 31, no. 20, pp. 1633–1642, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. E. Steinfeld and G. S. Danford, Enabling Environments: Measuring the Impact of Environment on Disability and Rehabilitation, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY, USA, 1999.
  34. F. Kronenberg, S. S. Algado, and N. Pollard, Occupational Therapy without Borders: Learning from the Spirit of Survivors, Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, London, UK, 2005.
  35. H. Dong, “Shifting paradigms in universal design,” in Universal Access in Human Computer Interaction: Coping with Diversity, C. Stephanidis, Ed., pp. 66–74, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  36. R. Nissim, Universal Housing—Universal Benefits: A VCOSS Discussion Paper on Universal Housing Regulation in Victoria, VCOSS, Melbourne, Australia, 2008.
  37. D. Fouarge, Costs of Non-Social Policy: Towards an Economic Framework of Quality Social Policies—And the Costs of Not Having Them, European Commission, 2003.
  38. I. Schraner and N. Bolzan, “Inclusion—what does it cost and how do we measure this?” in Assistive Technology from Adapted Equipment to Inclusive Environments, P. L. Emiliani, L. Burzagli, A. Como, F. Gabbanini, and A. Salminen, Eds., pp. 777–782, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  39. D. De Jonge and I. Schraner, “Economics of inclusiveness: can we as a society afford not to provide assistive technology or use universal design?” in The State of the Science in Universal Design: Emerging Research and Developments, J. Maisel, Ed., pp. 132–143, Bentham Science, Buffalo, NY, USA, 2010. View at Google Scholar