Assistive technology in developing countries: a review from the perspective of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Abstract

Background: The ‘Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (CRPD) requires governments to meet the assistive technology needs of citizens. However, the access to assistive technology in developing countries is severely limited, which is aggravated by a lack of related services.

Objectives: To summarize current knowledge on assistive technology for low- and lower-middle-income countries published in 1995 or later, and to provide recommendations that facilitate implementation of the CRPD.

Study design: Literature review.

Methods: Literature was searched in web-based databases and reference lists. Studies carried out in low- and lower-middle-income countries, or addressing assistive technology for such countries, were included.

Results: The 52 included articles are dominated by product oriented research on leg prostheses and manual wheelchairs. Less has been published on hearing aids and virtually nothing on the broad range of other types of assistive technology.

Conclusions: To support effective implementation of the CRPD in these countries, there is a need for actions and research related particularly to policies, service delivery, outcomes and international cooperation, but also to product development and production.

Clinical relevance

The article has a potential to contribute to CRPD compliant developments in the provision of assistive technology in developing countries by providing practitioners with an overview of published knowledge and researchers with identified research needs.

Keywords

Assistive technology Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities low-income countries developing countries

Introduction

Assistive technology is adapted or specially designed technology for improving the functioning of people with disabilities.¹ The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) entitles its beneficiaries with rights to assistive technology to ensure their full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.² However, access to assistive technology is limited in many countries.³ ^– ⁸ The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that in low- and middle-income countries only 5–15% of people requiring assistive technology have access to it.⁹ Less than 3% of the hearing aids needed in these countries reach there.¹⁰ Estimates indicate that 0.5% of a population need prosthetic and orthotic devices and 1% need wheelchairs, but these needs are far from being met.¹¹ ^– ¹³ Trends in functional limitations among the elderly indicate an increased need for interventions such as assistive technology.¹⁴

The situation is aggravated by the fact that assistive technology is often supplied without considering the need for associated services.¹⁵ In general, these include individual assessment, selection, fitting, training and follow-up to ensure safe and efficient use. These services often have a significant impact on the outcome. In addition, accessibility of the environment is a prerequisite for using certain types of assistive technology.¹⁶ ^– ¹⁹ Incompatibility with the environment may result in assistive technology being abandoned.²⁰ Provision of substandard wheelchairs without clinical services, training of users and long-term possibilities of local maintenance and repair has been criticised and can result in dangerous scenarios for users.¹³

From the viewpoint of the medical model of disability, assistive technology might be seen as correcting the ‘shortcomings of an individual’, while from a social model perspective it is considered an enabler that reduces barriers in a ‘disabling environment’.²¹ Stressing the freedom of individuals to make their own choices, which is also to be respected in this field, the CRPD acknowledges that assistive technology can be used both for improving body structures and functions and for improving activities and participation by reducing barriers.^1,2

Compliance with the CRPD requires that assistive technology be equitably available, accessible and affordable irrespective of gender, age or impairment. To achieve this, governments and other signatories need to carry out measures related to policy, legislation, research, development, production, training, information, use and cooperation.²²

The objectives of this review were to present an overview of current knowledge on assistive technology for low- and lower-middle-income countries and to provide recommendations that facilitate the implementation of CRPD-compliant measures.

Method

Without language restriction we searched for literature published in 1995 or later in the web-based databases AMED, CINAHL, PubMed, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Science on 22 June 2009. The search terms ‘assisti* device*’, ‘assisti* technolog*’, ‘braille*’, ‘hearing aid*’, ‘low vision aid*’, ‘orthos*’, ‘prosthes*’, ‘self-help device*’ or ‘wheelchair*’ were used in combination with ‘developing countr*’, ‘less resourced’, ‘low income countr*’, ‘poverty’ or ‘technology transfer’. The reasons for including only articles published in 1995 or later were that two comprehensive reviews of rehabilitation of people with amputations and prosthetics in developing countries were published in 1996^23,24, and that the authors did not have access to all earlier articles.

Studies that were carried out in low- and lower-middle-income countries, as defined by the World Bank based on 2007 gross national income (GNI) per capita, or that addressed assistive technologies for such countries, were included. Literature reviews, case studies, papers published in non-peer-reviewed supplements, conference proceedings and studies on accessibility measures, dental prostheses and devices requiring surgical procedures for fitting were excluded.

We searched the reference lists of selected articles and included those that met the selection criteria. Relevant articles known to us but not found by the strategy above were included. A complementary search on 9 March 2010 was carried out in AMED, CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science for the same time period using ‘prosthet*’ or ‘enabling technol*’ in combination with the second group of search terms.

Identified articles were categorized based on the type of assistive technology and the focus of study. Six focus areas were used: product design, product evaluation, production, services, outcomes of use, and documents. As the studies covered various assistive technologies and impairments, and differed greatly in focus, each with its preferred research methods, a complete evaluation of the strength of the evidence was not carried out. However, sample size, study design and instrumentation were compiled for studies on product evaluation, services and outcomes of use.

Results

The initial search yielded a total of 49 articles and the complementary search yielded an additional three articles. Among a total of 52 included articles, 11 were published 1995–1999, 21 were published 2000–2004, and 20 were published in 2005 or later.

The result of categorizing the studies according to type of assistive technology and focus of study is presented in Table 1. It may be noted that 26 of the articles (50%) particularly address lower limb prostheses and 12 articles (23%) address manual wheelchairs only. In addition, leg prostheses and manual wheelchairs are included in 1 and 2 articles, respectively, each covering more than one assistive technology type. Hearing aids are covered by 6 articles (12%) and upper limb prostheses are covered by 5 articles (10%). One article each covered orthoses, powered wheelchairs and assistive technology for people affected by leprosy. Two thirds of the studies addressed technology in terms of product design (8 articles), product evaluation (20 articles) and production (7 articles). Research on services and outcomes was reported in 8 articles (15%) each and a content analysis was reported in 1 article. One first author (Jensen) has contributed to 13 of the articles (25%).

Table 1.

Included studies by type of assistive technology and focus of study.

Assistive technology	Product design	Product evaluation	Production	Service	Outcomes of use	Documents
Prostheses
Lower limb	Sathishkumar 2004²⁸	Arya 1995³⁵	Jensen 2005b⁴²	Reisinger 2007⁴⁸	Matsen 1999⁵¹
		Hansen 2003⁴ ⁹	Meanley 1998²⁶
		Jensen 1999³¹	Thanh 2009⁴³
		Jensen 2000³⁶	Wu 2003⁸⁶
		Jensen 2002³⁹	Wu 2009a⁴⁵
		Jensen 2004a⁴¹
		Jensen 2004b⁴⁰
		Jensen 2004c³⁸
		Jensen 2005a⁴⁶
		Jensen 2006a⁴⁷
		Jensen 2006b³⁰
		Jensen 2006c²⁹
		Jensen 2007a³²
		Jensen 2007b³³
		Sam 2004³⁴
		Verhoeff 1999³⁷
Upper limb	Sitek 2004²⁵		Wu 2009b⁵⁰		Bhaskaranand 2003²⁷
Lower and upper limb				Bigelow 2004⁵² Yinusa 2003⁵³
Orthoses
Lower limb	Manigandan 2004²⁴
Wheeled mobility devices
Manual wheelchairs	Authier 2007⁵⁷	Armstrong 2007⁵⁸	Pearlman 2006⁶²	Mukherjee 2005⁶⁷	Mukherjee 2000⁶⁶
	Lysack 1999⁵⁴	Guimaraes 2003⁶¹			Mukherjee 2001⁶⁵
	Mulholland 1998⁶⁰	Mulholland 2000⁵⁵			Shore 2008⁶⁴
	Zipfel 2007⁵⁶
Powered wheelchairs	Pearlman 2009⁵ ⁹
Hearing aids
Hearing aids		Parving 2004⁶⁸		Baltussen 2009⁷²	Furuta 1998⁶ ⁹
				Wirz 1998⁷⁰	Joseph 2003⁷³
					Olusanya 2004⁷¹
Other
Prostheses, orthoses, shoes, wheelchairs, crutches, canes				Francois 1998⁷⁴ May-Teerink 1999⁶³
Leprosy related						Borg 2009⁷⁵

Details of the studies on product evaluation, services and outcomes of use are given in Table 2. The samples range from 3 to over 400. A variety of designs were used but none were randomized control trials.

Table 2.

Details of studies on product evaluation, services and outcomes of use.

Focus	Type	Reference	Sample size	Study design	Instrument
Product evaluation	Prostheses	Arya 1995³⁵	3	Laboratory test
		Hansen 2003⁴ ⁹	7	Laboratory test
		Jensen 1999³¹	32	Randomized clinical trial
		Jensen 2000³⁶	32	Prospective	ISPO protocol, Harold Wood/Stanmore (HWS)
		Jensen 2002³⁹	81	Prospective
		Jensen 2004a⁴¹	62	Prospective, controlled	ISPO protocol
		Jensen 2004b⁴⁰	72	Follow-up	ISPO protocol
		Jensen 2004c³⁸	172	Follow-up	ISPO protocol
		Jensen 2005a⁴⁶	141	Prospective
		Jensen 2006a⁴⁷	198	Prospective	ISPO benchmark
		Jensen 2006b³⁰	158	Prospective, controlled	ISPO protocol
		Jensen 2006c²⁹	155	Prospective, controlled	ISPO protocol
		Jensen 2007a³²	81	Prospective, controlled	ISPO protocol
		Jensen 2007b³³	21 feet	Laboratory test	ISO 10328
		Sam 2004³⁴	11 feet	Laboratory test
		Verhoeff 1999³⁷	43	Cross-sectional, interview	Questionnaire
	Wheelchairs	Armstrong 2007⁵⁸	100	Prospective
		Guimaraes 2003⁶¹	30	Laboratory test
		Mulholland 2000⁵⁵	8	Trial, interview
	Hearing aids	Parving 2004⁶⁸	25	Prospective	International Outcome Items for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA)
Service	Prostheses	Reisinger 2007⁴⁸	5	Controlled trial	ABA, VAA
		Bigelow 2004⁵²	164	Cross-sectional, interview	Questionnaire (Matsen 2003)
		Yinusa 2003⁵³	87	Prospective
	Wheelchairs	Mukherjee 2005⁶⁷	162	Cross-sectional	Questionnaire, test of ambulatory performance
	Hearing aids	Baltussen 2009⁷²	407	Prospective, interview	Questionnaire
		Wirz 1998⁷⁰	Not applicable
	Other	Francois 1998⁷⁴	1212 households	Household survey, examination
		May-Teerink 1999⁶³	49	Cross-sectional, interview	Questionnaire
Outcomes	Prostheses	Matsen 2003⁵¹	83	Cross-sectional, interview	Questionnaire
		Bhaskaranand 2003²⁷	71	Follow-up, clinical review	Prosthetic Success Score (modified)
	Wheelchairs	Mukherjee 2000⁶⁶	15	Laboratory test
		Mukherjee 2001⁶⁵	34	Controlled trial
		Shore 2008⁶⁴	188	Follow-up, interview	International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)
	Hearing aids	Furuta 1998⁶ ⁹	37	Follow-up, interview	Questionnaire
		Joseph 2003⁷³	300	Cross-sectional	Tool
		Olusanya 2004⁷¹	99	Cross-sectional, interview	International Outcome Items for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA)

The main findings according to type of assistive technology are summarized in the following.

Prostheses and orthoses

Different designs of arm and leg prostheses and leg orthoses have been described and evaluated. They should be functional, affordable, durable, easy to fabricate and repair, adaptable to local materials, and culturally acceptable.²⁵ ^– ²⁸

An adjustable, temporary, femoral socket prosthesis has been described in the literature and was claimed to be cost-effective.²⁹

Various foot designs have been evaluated in field contexts and in laboratory settings.³⁰ ^– ³⁶ The feet showed wide variation in durability, with two VI models considered to be low-cost, durable, locally manufactured feet.³¹ However, out of 21 foot models commonly used in the developing countries, none passed mechanical testing according to ISO standards.³⁴ There are variations between feet in terms of shock-absorbing capacity, gait performance and mass.^35,36

Prosthetic systems for people with leg amputations have been evaluated. The ICRC polypropylene system for trans-tibial prostheses was reported to be an attractive and durable solution, while two other systems performed unsatisfactorily.³⁷ ^– ⁴⁰ TATCOT resin-wood and ICRC polypropylene trans-femoral systems provided what was considered clinically and technically acceptable, while the outcome of another system was unsatisfactory.^41,42 Poor outcomes are attributed to inadequacies in the construction, material and socket fit, and in the training of involved personnel.³⁹ ^– ⁴¹

Arm prostheses should preferably be of light weight.²⁶

Suggestions to improve production capacity include enhancing the productivity, efficiency and quality of services, and increasing the number of prosthetists through training programmes.¹³ Different methods to meet the needs for cost- and time-efficient fabrication of sockets have been developed. The CIR casting system using micro polystyrene beads contained in a thin bag appears to provide a better fit than plaster of Paris casting and sand-casting.⁴³ ^– ⁴⁶ To measure the quality of leg prostheses a benchmark has been developed.^47,48

A comparison of three systems for á priori alignment indicated that all of them have the potential for application in outreach prosthetic services.⁴⁹ Building alignment into a prosthesis without special hardware has been suggested for developing countries.⁵⁰

A fabrication process for making low-cost trans-radial sockets using recyclable plastic soda bottles has been described in the literature. The sockets can be used for stump care or incorporated with terminal devices.⁵¹

People in Vietnam were relatively satisfied with prosthetic treatment although their leg amputations led to departure from previous careers, inability to perform rigorous physical activities and difficulties with social interactions.⁵² A study of the situation of people with amputations in Haiti revealed that only one quarter of 164 interviewees had ever had a prosthesis due to inaccessibility and unaffordable services. Existing workshops were limited in their scope of services due to insufficient supplies and inadequately trained personnel.⁵³ Delay in fitting of upper limb prosthesis seemed to have no correlation with successful rehabilitation.²⁸ However, poor prosthetic services can lead to unsatisfactory results.⁵⁴ Discrepancies in care between demographic groups and between different regions have been noted.^52,53

Wheeled mobility devices

Detailed designs of manual and powered wheelchairs developed for various purposes have been reported, sometimes along with their evaluation.⁵⁵ ^– ⁶⁰ Wheelchairs need to be affordable, rugged and suited to manoeuvring over diverse terrain, and should meet the individual’s safety, functional, social, geographical and cultural needs.^58,61 To improve safety and comfort, a low-cost wheelchair cushion with better pressure distribution than a foam cushion has been designed.⁶² Involving end users in design and evaluation is crucial. Function and quality of life are paramount and should not be overtaken by technical issues.⁵⁶

Collaboration between countries in designing and testing wheelchairs has been documented.⁵⁷ Reports indicate that the transfer of technology is difficult.^55,57,60

Considering the need for wheelchairs, the problems in their provision are enormous. As a complement to charities and local small-scale manufacturing, increased large-scale domestic production and import may be necessary if supply is to meet demand, maintain high sustainability and achieve maximum impact.⁶³

The use of mobility devices such as wheelchairs, crutches and canes improves mobility, health and quality of life, and users with better mobility seem to get better opportunities.^64,65 In developing countries quality of life may be a more important consideration in the provision of assistive technology than increased independence.⁶¹ Physiological outcomes of wheelchair use indicate that arm-crank propulsion is useful for long-distance rides while hand-rim propulsion is suitable for short-distance ambulation.^66,67

To reduce negative effects of wheelchair use and high abandon rates, it is important that users are properly assessed.⁶⁸

Hearing aids

Low-cost hearing aids meeting WHO requirements are produced, although they are not readily available to everyone in need. Solar-powered hearing aids have been developed to reduce the need to replace batteries.⁶⁹ ^– ⁷¹

Aural rehabilitation seems to be feasible and effective in enhancing activity and participation for people with hearing impairments.⁷² Estimates in India indicate that both passive screening and fitting of hearing aids at the tertiary care level, and active screening and provision of hearing aids at the secondary care level, are cost-effective. Active programmes were slightly more costly but were able to achieve a higher coverage.⁷³

Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) has been suggested as an effective strategy to reach children with hearing impairments.⁷¹

The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) is considered to be a valuable tool to measure outcome of hearing aid use.⁷² Hearing aids offer their users high satisfaction and improved functioning.^69,72 Regular use of a hearing aid has a positive impact on the language performance of students.⁷⁴

Other issues

With the exception of those requiring lower limb prostheses, a survey in Afghanistan revealed that the majority of people with disabilities were not equipped with the necessary assistive technology.⁷⁵ Findings from Uganda indicate that lack of economic means is a primary barrier to assistive technology.⁶⁴ Gender differences in access to assistive technology based on financial and cultural factors have been reported.^52,64,75 Not only women but also children were less likely to access assistive technology.⁷⁵ The potential of assistive technology to facilitate the activities and participation of people affected by leprosy seems not well utilized.⁷⁶

Discussion

Despite being valuable sources of information, conference reports and recommendations, WHO guidelines (e.g. references 10–12 and 77–79) and reviews and overviews (e.g. references 13, 23 and 80–82) were not included in this review, as the intention was to take stock of current, peer-reviewed and published scientific evidence.

An average annual publication rate of about 3.5 articles during the studied period indicates that research on assistive technology in low- and lower-middle-income countries has received very little attention. The scarce literature is dominated by product-oriented research on leg prostheses and manual wheelchairs. Less is published on hearing aids and virtually nothing is published on the broad range of other types of assistive technology and related issues. Thus, there is a general lack of evidence to support effective implementation of the required assistive technology measures of the CRPD, which has been pointed out elsewhere.⁸³

Reasons for the lack of evidence may be sought not only in limited funding. Actors in this field have focused on developing and implementing strategies to meet at least a fraction of the need for assistive technology rather than publishing in peer-reviewed journals. With few exceptions the scientific community, donors and development organizations have not given priority to this type of research in the past. However, there is a chance that this will change as compliance with the CRPD requires assistive technology research and technical and economic cooperation between countries. To support the human development of people with disabilities, who are overrepresented among the poor yet overlooked in development strategies,⁸⁴ the scientific community needs to provide evidence that guides governments and organizations in their efforts to provide assistive technologies, as these can be an effective means to health, education, work and participation in family and community life.⁸³

The included articles report positive outcomes of assistive technology use in specific areas (e.g. health, mobility and education) and in general areas such as activities, participation, functioning and quality of life. Activities, participation and functioning are defined in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.¹ There is less consensus on quality of life, as this varies among individuals and their perspectives.⁸⁵ This is also reflected in the articles, although none defines quality of life. One article uses quality of life to mean independence in performing activities, level of pain and ability to transport multiple or large objects,⁶¹ while another article associates it with level of difficulty in carrying out tasks.⁶⁵

Provision of assistive technology is not about isolated activities such as design or supply of products, or delivery of services. Although research addressing separate components of provision is necessary, there is a growing need for research that applies a system perspective to guide the development of holistic strategies for cost-efficient provision. Countries that are sincere in their attempts to comply with the CRPD will find themselves in a situation where they need to implement measures to ensure the provision of assistive technology at national level. Without a holistic, national plan it is likely that inequitable access will prevail, with significant differences between people living in different locations or having different impairments, and that available resources will not be utilized optimally, as parallel systems to serve people with various needs may be developed or maintained. Also international cooperation – whether economic or technical – needs to support national plans in a coordinated fashion.

With reference to a recent definition of ‘appropriate wheelchair’, appropriate assistive technology should meet the user’s needs and environmental conditions; provide proper fit and support; be safe and durable; be available in the country; and be obtained, and services sustained, in the country at the most economical and affordable price.¹² For many ‘affordable’ means at no cost.⁸⁶ However, as already pointed out, safety and function should never be compromised.

Based on the findings and the discussion above, the following recommendations are made to facilitate implementation of the required CRPD measures:

As there are variations in access to assistive technology across genders, ages and disabilities, these perspectives should be considered in the planning, implementation and evaluation of activities.

Evidence to guide development of effective policies and legislation is needed as such evidence is scarce.

Research and development on design, evaluation, production and use of assistive technologies are still required, particularly in areas not already addressed, e.g. for cognitive and visual impairments.

Research on assistive technology to facilitate work and education is required from a human rights perspective as well as to reduce poverty.

Research is needed to guide the development of cost-effective strategies that ensure assistive technology is equitably available, accessible and affordable. Opportunities to use CBR in this regard should be explored and documented.

To prevent a lack of adequately trained personnel to staff new services, suitable training programmes need to be developed.

To guide the utilization of available resources, good quality studies of outcome and cost-effectiveness are greatly needed.

Development of strategies and methods for effective international cooperation would facilitate implementation of the CRPD.

To comply with the CRPD requirement of undertaking or promoting assistive technology research, governments are recommended to develop indigenous research capacity. Countries that lack necessary resources may consider cooperating regionally or in partnership with established research centres as part of international cooperation. This may generate new and innovative ideas in a field seemingly dominated by researchers from well-resourced settings.

Mechanisms to monitor government compliance with the CRPD regarding assistive technology, including research and international cooperation, should be developed and implemented.

Acknowledgments

The authors are most grateful for the reviewers’ thoughtful and constructive comments.

Funding

This work was partly funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).

References

WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002.

UN. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Resolution 61/106. New York: United Nations, 2007.

Oderud T, Grann O. Providing assistive devices and rehabilitation services in developing countries. The 5th European conference for the Advancement of Assistive Technology, November 1999. Düsseldorf; 1999.

Eide

van Rooy

Loeb

. Living conditions among people with activity limitations in Namibia: a representative national survey. Oslo: SINTEF Unimed, 2003.

Nilsson

. Community-Based Rehabilitation as we have experienced it: voices of persons with disabilities, Part 1. Geneva: WHO & SHIA, 2002.

Santos-Zingale

McColl

. Disability and participation in post-conflict situations: the case of Sierra Leone. Disabil Soc 2006; 21(3): 243–257.

Dhungana

. The lives of disabled women in Nepal: vulnerability without support. Disabil Soc 2006; 21(2): 133–146.

Tinney

Chiodo

Haig

Wiredu

. Medical rehabilitation in Ghana. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29(11-12): 921–927.

WHO. Assistive devices/technologies. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010.

10.

WHO. Guidelines for hearing aids and services for developing countries. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2004.

11.

WHO. Guidelines for training personnel in developing countries for prosthetics and orthotics services. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2005.

12.

Borg

Khasnabis

(eds). Guidelines on the provision of manual wheelchairs in less-resourced settings. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008.

13.

Pearlman

Cooper

Krizack

Lindsley

Reisinger

. Lower-limb prostheses and wheelchairs in low-income countries: an overview. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2008; 27(2): 12–22.

14.

Parker

Thorslund

. Health trends in the elderly population: getting better and getting worse. Gerontologist 2007; 47(2): 150–158.

15.

Oderud

. Assistive technology for people with disabilities in Namibia and Zimbabwe: Report STF78 A900525. Oslo: SINTEF, 2000.

16.

Scherer

Jutai

Fuhrer

Demers

Deruyter

. A framework for modeling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007; 2(1): 1–8.

17.

Arthanat

Bauer

Lenker

Nochajski

YWB

. Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007; 2(4): 235–248.

18.

Scherer

. Living in the state of stuck: how assistive technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. Massachusetts: Brookline Books, 2005.

19.

Lindström

. Appropriate technologies for assistive devices in low-income countries. In: Hsu

Michael

Fisk

(eds). AAOS Atlas of orthoses and assistive devices. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier, 2008.

20.

Saha R, Dey AK, Hatoj M, Podder S. Study of wheelchair operations in rural areas covered under the District Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) scheme. Indian J Disabil Rehabil 1990; Jul–Dec:74–87.

21.

Roulstone

. Enabling technology: Disabled people, work and new technology. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1998.

22.

Borg

Larsson

. The right to assistive technology and its implementation. In: Bhanushali

(ed.) UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Ahmedabad, India: ICFAI University Press; In press.

23.

Staats

. The rehabilitation of the amputee in the developing world: a review of the literature. Prosthet Orthot Int 1996; 20(1): 45–50.

24.

Cummings

. Prosthetics in the developing world: a review of the literature. Prosthet Orthot Int 1996; 20(1): 51–60.

25.

Manigandan

Bedford

Kumar

Peter

Premkumar

. ‘MYNI’s orthosis’: a self-adjustable, dynamic knee extension orthosis for quadriceps weakness in haemophilia rehabilitation. Haemophilia 2004; 10(6): 738–742.

26.

Sitek

Yamaguchi

Herring

Willems

Boninger

. Development of an inexpensive upper-extremity prosthesis for use in developing countries. J Prosthet Orthot 2004; 16(3): 94–102.

27.

Meanley

Reed

. An ‘appropriate technology’ trans-femoral prosthesis, using materials available in Nepal. Prosthet Orthot Int 1998; 22(2): 123–128.

28.

Bhaskaranand

Bhat

Acharya

. Prosthetic rehabilitation in traumatic upper limb amputees (an Indian perspective). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003; 123(7): 363–366.

29.

Sathishkumar

Manigandan

Asha

Charles

Poonoose

. A cost-effective, adjustable, femoral socket, temporary prosthesis for immediate rehabilitation of above-knee amputation. Int J Rehabil Res 2004; 27(1): 71–74.

30.

Jensen

Nilsen

Thanh

Saldana

Hartz

. Clinical field testing of polyurethane feet for trans-tibial amputees in tropical low-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int 2006; 30(2): 182–194.

31.

Jensen

Nilsen

Zeffer

Fisk

Hartz

. Clinical field testing of vulcanized rubber feet for trans-tibial amputees in tropical low-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int 2006; 30(2): 195–212.

32.

Jensen

Heim

. Preliminary experiences with modified SACH feet manufactured and used in a tropical developing world setting. Prosthet Orthot Int 1999; 23(3): 245–248.

33.

Jensen

Raab

. Clinical field testing of vulcanized Jaipur rubber feet for trans-tibial amputees in low-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007; 31(1): 10515–10515.

34.

Jensen

Treichi

. Mechanical testing of prosthetic feet utilized in low-income countries according to ISO-10328 standard. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007; 31(2): 177206–177206.

35.

Sam

Hansen

Childress

. Characterisation of prosthetic feet used in low-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int 2004; 28(2): 132–140.

36.

Arya

Lees

Nerula

Klenerman

. A biomechanical comparison of the SACH, Seattle and Jaipur feet using ground reaction forces. Prosthet Orthot Int 1995; 1(1): 37–45.

37.

Jensen

Heim

. Evaluation of polypropylene prostheses designed by the International Committee of the Red Cross for trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 2000; 24(1): 47–54.

38.

Verhoeff

Poetsma

Gasser

Tung

. Evaluation of use and durability of polypropylene trans-tibial prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 1999; 23(3): 249–255.

39.

Jensen

Craig

Mtalo

Zelaya

. Clinical field follow-up of high density polyethylene (HDPE)-Jaipur prosthetic technology for trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 2004; 28(3): 230–244.

40.

Jensen

Raab

. Clinical field-testing of ATLAS prosthetic system for trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 2002; 26(2): 86–92.

41.

Jensen

Craig

Mtalo

Zelaya

. Clinical field follow-up of high density polyethylene (HDPE)-Jaipur prosthetic technology for trans-femoral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 2004; 28(2): 152–166.

42.

Jensen

Raab

. Clinical field testing of trans-femoral prosthetic technologies: resin-wood and ICRC-polypropylene. Prosthet Orthot Int 2004; 28(2): 141–151.

43.

Jensen

Poetsma

Thanh

. Sand-casting technique for trans-tibial prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 2005; 29(2): 165–175.

44.

Thanh

Poetsma

Jensen

. Preliminary experiences with the CIR casting system for transtibial prosthetic sockets. Prosthet Orthot Int 2009; 33(2): 130–134.

45.

Casanova

Smith

Edwards

Childress

. CIR sand casting system for trans-tibial socket. Prosthet Orthot Int 2003; 27(2): 146–152.

46.

Casanova

Reisinger

Smith

Childress

. CIR casting system for making transtibial sockets. Prosthet Orthot Int 2009; 33(1): 1–9.

47.

Jensen

Nilsen

Zeffer

. Quality benchmark for trans-tibial prostheses in low-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int 2005; 29(1): 53–58.

48.

Jensen

Raab

Fisk

Hartz

Saldana

Harte

. Quality of polypropylene sockets for trans-tibial prostheses in low-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int 2006; 30(1): 45–59.

49.

Reisinger

Casanova

Moorer

. Comparison of á priori alignment techniques for transtibial prostheses in the developing world: pilot study. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29(11): 863–872.

50.

Hansen

Meier

Sam

Childress

Edwards

. Prosthetic feet for low-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int 2003; 27(2): 8999–8999.

51.

Casanova

Ikeda

. Plastic soda bottles: a reusable material for making transradial sockets. Prosthet Orthot Int 2009; 33(2): 100–106.

52.

Matsen

. A closer look at amputees in Vietnam: a field survey of Vietnamese using prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 1999; 23(2): 93–101.

53.

Bigelow

Korth

Jacobs

Anger

Riddle

Gifford

. A picture of amputees and the prosthetic situation in Haiti. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26(4): 246–252.

54.

Yinusa

Ugbeye

. Problems of amputation surgery in a developing country. Int Orthop 2003; 27: 121–124.

55.

Lysack

Wyss

Packer

Mulholland

Panchal

. Designing appropriate rehabilitation technology: a mobility device for women with ambulatory disabilities in India. Int J Rehabil Res 1999; 22(1): 1–9.

56.

Mulholland

Packer

Laschinger

Lysacks

Wyss

Balaram

. Evaluating a new mobility device: feedback from women with disabilities in India. Disabil Rehabil 2000; 22(3): 111–122.

57.

Zipfel

Cooper

Pearlman

Cooper

McCartney

. New design and development of a manual wheelchair for India. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29(11–12): 949–962.

58.

Authier

Pearlman

Allegretti

Rice

Cooper

. A sports wheelchair for low-income countries. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29(11–12): 963–967.

59.

Armstrong

Reisinger

Smith

. Evaluation of CIR-Whirlwind wheelchair and service provision in Afghanistan. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29(11–12): 935–948.

60.

Pearlman

Cooper

Chhabra

Jefferds

. Design, development and testing of a low-cost electric powered wheelchair for India. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2009; 4(1): 42–57.

61.

Mulholland

Packer

Laschinger

Olney

Panchal

. The mobility needs of women with physical disabilities in India: a functional perspective. Disabil Rehabil 1998; 20(5): 168–178.

62.

Guimaraes

Mann

. Evaluation of pressure and durability of a low-cost wheelchair cushion designed for developing countries. Int J Rehabil Res 2003; 26(2): 141–143.

63.

Pearlman

Cooper

Zipfel

Cooper

McCartney

. Towards the development of an effective technology transfer model of wheelchairs to developing countries. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2006; 1(1): 103–110.

64.

May-Teerink

. A survey of rehabilitative services and people coping with physical disabilities in Uganda, East Africa. Int J Rehabil Res 1999; 22(4): 311–316.

65.

Shore

. Use of an economical wheelchair in India and Peru: impact on health and function. Med Sci Monit 2008; 14(12): 71–79.

66.

Mukherjee

Samanta

. Psychological response to the ambulatory performance of hand-rim and arm-crank propulsion systems. J Rehabil Res Dev 2001; 38(4): 391–399.

67.

Mukherjee

Samanta

. Evaluation of ambulatory performance of arm-propelled three-wheeled chair using heart rate as control index. Disabil Rehabil 2000; 22(10): 464–470.

68.

Mukherjee

Samanta

. Wheelchair charity: a useless benevolence in community-based rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27(10): 591–596.

69.

Parving

Christensen

. Clinical trial of a low-cost, solar-powered hearing aid. Acta Otolaryngol 2004; 124(4): 416–420.

70.

Furuta

Yoshino

. The present situation of the use of hearing aids in rural areas of Sri Lanka: problems and future prospects. Int J Rehabil Res 1998; 21(1): 103–108.

71.

Wirz

Lichtig

. The use of non-specialist personnel in providing a service for children disabled by hearing impairment. Disabil Rehabil 1998; 20(5): 189–194.

72.

Olusanya

. Self-reported outcomes of aural rehabilitation in a developing country. Int J Audiol 2004; 43(10): 563–571.

73.

Baltussen

Abraham

Priya

Achamma

Anand

Gift

. Costs and health effects of screening and delivery of hearing aids in Tamil Nadu, India: an observational study. BMC Public Health 2009; 9(135).

74.

Joseph

. A study on certain factors influencing language performance of hearing impaired students. Asia Pac Disabil Rehabil J 2003; 14(2): 2018–2018.

75.

Francois

Lambert

M-L

Salort

Bertrand

Tonglet

. Causes of locomotor disability and need for orthopaedic devices in a heavily mined Taliban-controlled province of Afghanistan: issues and challenges for public health managers. Trop Med Int Health 1998; 3(5): 391–396.

76.

Borg

Larsson

. Assistive devices for people affected by leprosy: underutilised factors of functioning? Lepr Rev 2009; 80(1): 13–21.

77.

Shangali

. Consensus conferences on lower limb orthotics and wheelchair technology. Prosthet Orthot Int 2006; 30(1): 1–3.

78.

Sheldon

Jacobs

(eds). Report of a consensus conference on wheelchairs for developing countries. Bengaluru, India, 6–11 November 2006. Copenhagen: ISPO, 2007.

79.

Ramstrand

Jacobs

(eds). Report of a consensus conference on appropriate lower limb orthotics for developing countries. Hanoi, Vietnam, 3–8 April 2006. Copenhagen: ISPO, 2007.

80.

Meanley

. Different approaches and cultural considerations in third world prosthetics. Prosthet Orthot Int 1995; 19(3): 176–180.

81.

Kim

Mulholland

. Seating/wheelchair technology in the developing world: need for a closer look. Technol Disabil 1999; 11(1–2): 21–27.

82.

Olusanya

Luxon

Wirz

. Screening for early childhood hearing loss in Nigeria. J Med Screen 2005; 12(3): 115–118.

83.

Borg

Lindström

Larsson

. Assistive technology in developing countries: national and international responsibilities to implement the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Lancet 2009; 374: 1863–1865.

84.

Groce

Trani

J-F

. Millennium Development Goals and people with disabilities. Lancet 2009; 374(9704): 1800–1801.

85.

Candel

Dubois

. Vers une définition de la ‘qualité de vie'? (Towards a definition of ‘quality of life'?). Rev Francoph Psycho-Oncologie 2005; 1: 18–22.

86.

UN. Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. A/RES/48/96, 85th plenary meeting. New York: United Nations, 1993.

87.

Casanova

Smith

Edwards

Childress

. CIR sand casting system for trans-tibial socket. Prosthet Orthot Int 2003; 27(2): 146–152.