Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-05
The Mediating Effect of Information and Communication Technology Usages on the Nexus Between Assistive Technology and Quality of Life Among People with Communication Disability
This study aims to investigate the mediating effect of information and communication technology (ICT) on the nexus between quality of life (QoL) and assistive technology among people with communication disabilities. Using a national-level disability survey data in Australia, this study employs a series of causal mediation models based on counterfactual framework for mediation analysis. The results indicate that about 61% to 73% of the impact of assistive technology on QoL among people with communication disabilities is mediated through ICT use. Furthermore, it is evident that the degree of communication impairment partially moderates the impact of ICT-enabled assistive technology on QoL. The findings of the study have several practical implications. First, this study indicates that better integration of assistive technology with ICT will enhance the quality of people with communication disabilities. The second broad recommendation is that improved accessibility with affordable high-speed broadband Internet can deliver services that people with disabilities need.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PattyNJS, KoopmanschapM, Holtzer-GoorK. A cost-effectiveness study of ICT training among the visually impaired in the Netherlands. BMC Ophthalmology, 2018; 18:1–10.
2.
CrispD, GriffithsK, MackinnonA, et al.An online intervention for reducing depressive symptoms: secondary benefits for self-esteem, empowerment and quality of life. Psychiatry Research, 2014; 216:60–66.
3.
KadijevichDM, OdovicG, MaslikovicD. (2016) Using ICT and quality of life: comparing persons with and without disabilities. In International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs. Linz, Austria: Springer, pp. 129–133.
4.
KeskinenT, HeimonenT, TurunenM, et al.SymbolChat: a flexible picture-based communication platform for users with intellectual disabilities. Interacting with Computers, 2012; 24:374–386.
5.
MeshurHFA. Opportunities for disabled people through ICTs: a perspective from Turkey. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 2016; 15:311–320.
6.
UmehK, MackayM, MulhearnC. Information and communication technology, well-being, and ethnicity. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2016; 19:165–171.
7.
Mcclain-NhlapoCV, SivonenLHA, RajaDS, et al. (2018) Disability inclusion and accountability framework. Washington, DC: World Bank.
8.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017) Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia, 2015. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
9.
AlwellM, CobbB. A map of the intervention literature in secondary special education transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 2006; 29:3–27.
10.
Blain-MoraesS, ChauT. Challenges of developing communicative interaction in individuals with congenital profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 2012; 37:348–359.
11.
LancioniGE, O'ReillyMF, SinghNN, et al.Communication opportunities via special messaging technology for two post-coma persons with multiple disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 2011; 32:1703–1708.
12.
SachdevaN, TuikkaA-M, KimppaKK, et al.Digital disability divide in information society: a framework based on a structured literature review. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 2015; 13:283–298.
13.
UnitedNations. (2006) Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In UnitedNations, ed. NewYork. https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf (accessed September25, 2019).
14.
DobranskyK, HargittaiE. The disability divide in internet access and use. Information, Communication & Society, 2006; 9:313–334.
15.
ITU. (2016) Yearbook ofStatistics. Telecommunication/ICTIndicators 2006–2015. In UnionIT, ed. International TelecommunicationUnion. https://read.itu-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/yearbook-of-statistics-telecommunication-ict-indicators-2006-2015_pub/80decce2-en#page1 (accessed August15, 2019).
16.
PapanastasiouG, DrigasA, SkianisC, et al.Patient-centric ICTs based healthcare for students with learning, physical and/or sensory disabilities. Telematics and Informatics, 2018; 35:654–664.
17.
SamuelssonC, EkströmA. Digital communication support in interaction involving people with dementia. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 2019; 44:41–50.
18.
LancioniGE, SinghNN, O'ReillyMF, et al.Further evaluation of a telephone technology for enabling persons with multiple disabilities and lack of speech to make phone contacts with socially relevant partners. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 2013; 34:4178–4183.
19.
MavrouK, Meletiou-MavrotherisM, KärkiA, et al.Opportunities and challenges related to ICT and ICT-AT use by people with disabilities: an explorative study into factors that impact on the digital divide. Technology and Disability, 2017; 29:63–75.
20.
SiegelC, DornerTE. Information technologies for active and assisted living—influences to the quality of life of an ageing society. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2017; 100:32–45.
21.
AshrafMM, HasanN, LewisL, et al.A systematic literature review of the application of information communication technology for visually impaired people. International Journal of Disability Management, 2017; 11:1–18.
22.
SteelEJ, LaytonNA. Assistive technology in Australia: integrating theory and evidence into action. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 2016; 63:381–390.
23.
PerelmutterB, McGregorKK, GordonKR. Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: an evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis. Computers and Education, 2017; 114:139–163.
24.
AgreeEM. The potential for technology to enhance independence for those aging with a disability. Disability and Health Journal, 2014; 7(1,Supplement):S33–S39.
25.
O'NeillSJ, SmythS, SmeatonA, et al.Assistive technology: understanding the needs and experiences of individuals with autism spectrum disorder and/or intellectual disability in Ireland and the UK. Assistive Technology, 2019: 1–9. DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2018.1535526.
26.
HakobyanL, LumsdenJ, O'SullivanD, et al.Mobile assistive technologies for the visually impaired. Survey of Ophthalmology, 2013; 28:513–528.
27.
WHO. (2011) World report on disability 2011. Geneva.
28.
ArcherN, KeshavjeeK, DemersC, et al.Online self-management interventions for chronically ill patients: cognitive impairment and technology issues. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2014; 83:264–272.
29.
RosnerY, PerlmanA. The effect of the usage of computer-based assistive devices on the functioning and quality of life of individuals who are blind or have low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 2018; 112:87–99.
30.
WHO. (2011) The WHOQOL-DISABILITIES module—manual. https://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/WHOQOL_DIS_Manual.pdf (accessed September19, 2019).
31.
RaghavendraP, NewmanL, GraceE, et al.Enhancing social participation in young people with communication disabilities living in rural Australia: outcomes of a home-based intervention for using social media. Disability & Rehabilitation, 2015; 37:1576–1590.
32.
BobakM, PikhartH, RoseR, et al.Socioeconomic factors, material inequalities, and perceived control in self-rated health: cross-sectional data from seven post-communist countries. Social Science & Medicine, 2000; 51:1343–1350.
33.
Van de MortelTF. Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2008; 25:40–48.
34.
PradhanRP, ArvinMB, NormanNR, et al.Economic growth and the development of telecommunications infrastructure in the G-20 countries: a panel-VAR approach. Telecommunications Policy, 2014; 38:634–649.
35.
HayesAF, RockwoodNJ. Regression-based statistical mediation and moderation analysis in clinical research: observations, recommendations, and implementation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 2017; 98:39–57.
36.
HicksR, TingleyD. Causal mediation analysis. The Stata Journal, 2012; 11:605–619.
37.
ImaiK, KeeleL, TingleyD. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 2010; 15:309–335.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
