This article presents the findings from data collected between October 1, 2000, and June 12, 2002, through a Web-based outcome data collection and management system designed for use by alternative financing programs (AFPs) for assistive technology that are supported by a grant from the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research. The findings suggest that funding for mobility equipment (including adapted transportation) is the most sought by applicants to AFPs. Although the majority of the applicants were receiving funding, women, people living in urban areas, and individuals in the lowest income quartile (less than $966/month) were less likely to be approved for a loan. Overall, the findings suggest that the AFPs are providing an avenue for people with disabilities to acquire assistive technology they have been unable to access through other funding sources. Areas for future development of the AFPs are identified, including outreach to minority and non—English-speaking groups.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrich, R., Ferrario, M., & Moi, M. (1998). A model of cost-outcome analysis for assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation, 20(1), 1—24.
2.
Assistive Technology Act of 1998, 29 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.
3.
Corin, E. (1994). The social and cultural matrix of health and disease . In R. G. Evans, M. L. Barer, & T. R. Marmor (Eds.), Why are some people healthy and others not? The determinants of health of populations (pp. 93—132). New York: Aldine De Gruyter .
4.
Cowan, D.M., & Turner-Smith, A.R. (1999). The user's perspective on the provision of electronic assistive technology: Equipped for life? TheBritish Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(1), 2—6.
5.
Day, H., & Jutai, J. (1996). Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: The PIADS. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 9, 159—168.
6.
Day, H., Jutai, J., Woolrich, W., & Strong, G. (2001). The stability of impact of assistive devices. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23(9), 400—404.
7.
Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (1996). Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology, 8(1), 3—13.
8.
Fuhrer, M.J. (2001). Assistive technology outcomes research: Challenges met and yet unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80, 528—535.
9.
Goodman, G., Tiene, D., & Luft, P. (2002). Adoption of assistive technology for computer access among college students with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1/2/3), 80—92.
10.
Hammel, J., Lai, J.-S., & Heller, T. (2002). The impact of assistive technology and environmental interventions on function and living situation status with people who are ageing with developmental disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation , 24(1/2/3), 93—105.
11.
Katz, M.H. (1999). Multivariable analysis: A practical guide for clinicians. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
LaPlante, M., Hendershot, G., & Moss, A. (1992). Assistive technology devices and home accessibility features: Prevalence, payment, need and trends. Advance Data , 217. (Available from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control)
13.
Louise-Bender Pape, T., Kim, J., & Weiner, B. (2002). The shaping of individual meaning assigned to assistive technology: A review of personal factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1/2/3), 5—20.
14.
Mann, W.C., Hurren, D., & Tomita, M. (1993). Comparison of assistive device use and needs of home-based older persons with different impairments. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 980—987.
15.
Mann, W.C., Nochajski, S.M., Sprigle, S.H., & Riordan, B.M. (1995). Custom device development and professional training in developmental disabilities. Technology andDisability, 4, 295—329.
16.
Mann, W.C., Ottenbacher, K.J., Fraas, L., Tomita, M., & Granger, C.V. (1999). Effectiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintaining independence and reducing home care costs for the frail elderly. Archives of Family Medicine, 8, 210—217.
17.
Manton, K.G., Corder, L., & Stallard, E. (1993). Changes in the use of personal assistance and special equipment from 1982 to 1989: Results from the 1982 and 1989 NLTCS . The Gerontologist, 33, 168—176.
18.
Mendelsohn, S.B. (1997). Assistive technology: Public policy and financing. Technology andDisability, 6(1/2), 29—48.
19.
National Council on Disability. (2000). Federal policy barriers to assistive technology. Washington, DC: Author.
20.
Notice, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Inviting Applications for Fiscal Year (FY)2001for New Awards for the Alternative Financing Program and a Pre-Application Meeting, 66Fed. Reg.114, 32169 (2001).
21.
Oldridge, N.B. (1996). Outcomes measurement: Health state preferences and economic evaluation. Assistive Technology, 8, 94—102.
22.
Rubin, R., & White-Means, S. (2001). Race, disability and assistive devices: Sociodemographics or discrimination. International Journal of Social Economics, 10/12, 927—941.
23.
Russell, J.N., Hendershot, G.E., LeClere, F., Howie, L.J., & Adler, M. (1997). Trends and differential use of assistive technology devices: United States, 1994. Advance Data, 292. (Available from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control)
24.
Scherer, M. (1993). Living in the state of stuck: How technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
25.
Scherer, M.J. (1996). Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disability and Rehabilitation, 18, 439—448.
26.
Seelman, K. (1998). Blueprint for the millennium: An analysis of regional hearings on assistive technology for people with disabilities. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
27.
Sevcik, R.A., Romski, M.A., Collier, V., Rayfield, C., Nelson, B., Walton-Bowe, A., et al. (1995). Project FACTT: Meeting the communication needs of children with severe developmental disabilities. Technology and Disability, 4, 233—241.
28.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Alternative financing mechanisms, Title III, Assistive Technology Act of 1998, First Annual Report to Congress. Washington, DC: National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
29.
Vanbiervliet, A., & Parette, H.P. (2002). Development and evaluation of the Families, Cultures and Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) multimedia program. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1/2/3), 131—143.
30.
Wallace, J., & Knorr, K. (1996). Loan financing programs for assistive technology: Strategies for development, current programs and recommendations for the future. Journal of Technology andDisability, 5(3/4), 255—266.
31.
Wallace, J.F., Hayes, M., & Bailey, M.N. (2000). Assistive technology loan financing: Status of program impact and consumer satisfaction. Technology andDisability, 13(1), 17—22.
