The rising demand for assistive technology (AT) highlights the potential of 3D printing as an innovative occupational therapy (OT) tool. This cost-effective technology enables the creation of customized AT devices that enhance client participation and well-being through remediation and adaptive approaches. However, adoption in OT practice faces several barriers, including limited practitioner awareness, insufficient training, and time and maintenance challenges. This commentary proposes a tiered approach focused on expanding education and integrating 3D printing into OT training and practice settings. In addition, it advocates for developing and using validated outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of 3D-printed devices. Client-reported satisfaction and participation metrics should be prioritized across practice settings to ensure that 3D-printed devices meet occupational goals and user needs. Expanding educational opportunities and developing validated assessment tools focusing on participatory outcomes will support broader integration of 3D printing in OT practice, improving AT access through client and practitioner collaboration.
Plain Language Summary
Expanding 3D Printing to Improve Access to Assistive Technology
To meet the rising demand for assistive technology (AT) to support daily activities, an innovative solution of 3D printing has emerged. However, barriers such as cost and limited training hinder the widespread use in occupational therapy (OT). This commentary explores how 3D printing improves accessibility and supports client-centered care, highlighting how OT practitioners use 3D-printed tools tailored to individual needs but also addresses challenges such as time, training gaps, and funding. To advance 3D printing in OT, education and developing specialized training should be expanded, and outcome measures used to demonstrate effectiveness. With proper support, 3D printing can transform AT delivery, promote equity, independence, and participation for individuals with disabilities.
AkyurekG.KarsS.CelikZ.KocC.CesimÖ. B. (2017). Assistive technology in occupational therapy. In HuriM. (Ed.), Occupational therapy: Occupation focused holistic practice in rehabilitation (pp. 92–115). Books on Demand.
3.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2010). Specialized knowledge and skills in technology and environmental interventions for occupational therapy practice. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(6_Supplement), S44–S56. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2010.64S44
4.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2016). Assistive technology and occupational performance. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70(Supplement_2), 7012410030p1–7012410030p9. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2016.706S02
5.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2017). Vision 2025. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71, 7103420010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2017.713002
6.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2020). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process—Fourth edition. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(Supplemental_2), 7412410010p1–7412410010p87. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.74S2001
7.
BaptistaM. L.FarzadM. (2024). Providing occupational therapy for an individual with a hand injury. In GillenG.BrownC. (Eds.), Willard and Spackman’s occupational therapy (pp. 1119–1128). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
8.
BenhamA.MilestryB.StempleJ.DavisJ.ScatenaD.BushJ.Kolakowsky-HaynerS.AmyK. (2024). Mobile device accessibility with 3D printed devices for individuals with physical disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 19(6), 2279–2284. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2023.2280244
CookA. M.PolgarJ. M.EncarnacaoP. (2019). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice (5th ed.). Elsevier.
11.
CopelandC.ReyesC. C.PeckJ. L.SrivastavaR.ZunigaJ. M. (2022). Functional performance and patient satisfaction comparison between a 3D printed and a standard transradial prosthesis: A case report. Biomedical Engineering Online, 21(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-022-00977-w
DavisF. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13, 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
14.
DayH. Y.JutaiJ.WoolrichW.StrongG. (2001). The stability of impact of assistive devices. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23(9), 400–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280010008906
15.
DegerliY. I.DoguF.OksuzC. (2022). Manufacturing an assistive device with 3D printing technology—A case report. Assistive Technology, 34(1), 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2020.1791278
16.
DemersL.de WitteL.WesselsR. (2001). Key dimensions of client satisfaction with assistive technology: A cross-validation of a Canadian measure in the Netherlands. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 33, 187–191. https://doi.org.10.1080/165019701750300663
17.
DemersL.Weiss-LambrouR.SkaB. (1996). Development of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology, 8(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.1996.10132268
18.
DemersL.Weiss-LambrouR.SkaB. (2002). The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-2002-14304
19.
FainE.PowellJ. (2020). 3D printing adaptive equipment for individuals with arthritis or rheumatic conditions [Continuing education]. AOTA Continuing Education. https://myaota.aota.org/shop_aota/product/OL8306
20.
FisherA. G.GriswoldL. (2024). Evaluating quality of occupational performance: Performance skills. In GillenG.BrownC. (Eds.), Willard and Spackman’s occupational therapy (pp. 882–899). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
21.
GarcíaT. P.Garabal-BarbeiraJ.TrilloP. P.FigeuuiraO. V.DíazC. N.LoureiroJ. P. (2021). A framework for a new approach to empower users through low-cost and do-it-yourself assistive technology. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 3039. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063039
22.
GentryK.SnyderK.BarstowB.Harrison-UtleyJ. (2018). The biopsychosocial model: Application to occupational therapy practice. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 6(4), 12. https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1412
23.
HowardJ.TaskerL. H.FisherZ.TreeJ. (2024). Assessing the use of co-design to produce bespoke assistive technology solutions within a current healthcare service: A service evaluation. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 19(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2060355
24.
HunzekerM.OzelieR. (2021). A cost-effective analysis of 3D printing applications in occupational therapy practice. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 9(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1751
25.
IraniN.OzelieR. (2023). Satisfaction with customizable 3D-printed finger orthoses compared to commercial SilverRing™ splints. Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 11(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.2016
26.
JoundiR. A.HuB.RangarajanS.LeongD. P.IslamS.SmithE. E.MirrakhiovE.SeronP.AlhabibK. F.AssembekovB.ChifambaJ.YusufR.KhatidR.FelixC.YusufaliA.MohammadifardN.RosengrenA.OguzA.IqbalR.. . . YusufS. (2024). Activity limitations, use of assistive devices, and mortality and clinical events in 2 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: An analysis of the PURE study. The Lancet, 404(10452), 554–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01050-X
27.
LawM.BaptisteS.McCollM.OpzoomerA.PolatajkoH.PollockN. (1990). The Canadian occupational performance measure: An outcome measure for occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(2), 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841749005700207
28.
LenkerJ. A.HarrisF.TaugherM.SmithR. O. (2013). Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8(5), 373–380. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2012.7494299
29.
LenkerJ. A.KoesterH. H.SmithR. O. (2021). Toward a national system of assistive technology outcomes measurement. Assistive Technology, 33(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2019.1567620
OttenbacherK. J.CusickA. (1990). Goal Attainment Scaling as a method of clinical service evaluation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44(6), 519–525. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.44.6.519
33.
PalazzoC.KlingerE.DornerV.KadriA.ThierryO.BoumenirY.MartinW.PoiraudeauS.VilleI. (2016). Barriers to home-based exercise program adherence with chronic low back pain: Patient expectations regarding new technologies. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 59(2), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2016.01.009
34.
PattersonR. M.SalatinB.JansonR.SalinasS. P.MullinsM. J. S. (2020). A current snapshot of the state of 3D printing in hand rehabilitation. Journal of Hand Therapy, 33(2), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2019.12.018
PutraK. B.MontgomeryN.KalamdaniS.ChenL.KellyB.WensmanJ.ShihA. (2023). Fabrication and assessment of partial finger protheses made using 3D-printed molds: A case study. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 47(3), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1097/PXR.0000000000000231
37.
RasmussenK. M.StewartB. C.JanesW. E. (2023). Feasibility of a customized 3D-printed assistive technology within an existing multidisciplinary amyotrophic lateral sclerosis clinic. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 18(8), 1466–1472. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2034996
38.
RomanowskiH.BierkandtF. S.LuchA.LauxP. (2023). Summary and derived risk assessment of 3D printing emission studies. Atmospheric Environment, 294, 119501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2022.119501
39.
SaviniA.SaviniG. G. (2015, August18–19). A short history of 3D printing, a technological revolution just started [Conference session]. 2015 ICOHTEC/IEEE International History of High-Technologies and Their Socio-Cultural Contexts Conference (HISTELCON), Tel-Aviv, Israel, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/HISTELCON.2015.7307314
40.
SchutzB. M.SudburyD.ScottN.MayohB.ChanB. (2022). Customized three-dimensional printed splints for neonates in the neonatal intensive care unit: Three case reports. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(6), 7606205020. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2022.049161
41.
SchwartzJ. K.FerminA.FineK.IglesiasN.PivarnikD.StruckS.VarelaN.JanesW. E. (2020). Methodology and feasibility of a 3D printed assistive technology intervention. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 15(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2018.1539877
42.
SlegersK.KriegA. M.LexisM. A. S. (2022). Acceptance of 3D printing by occupational therapists: An exploratory survey study. Occupational Therapy International, 2022(4241907), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4241907
43.
SmithR. O. (2016). The emergence and emergency of assistive technology outcomes research methodology. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 10(1), 19–37.
44.
TaoG.CharmG.KabacińskaK.MillerC. W.RobillardJ. M. (2020). Evaluation tools for assistive technologies: A scoping review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1010(6), 1025–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.01.008
45.
ThorsenR.BortoF.CaraccioloA. (2021). From patient to maker—A case study of co-designing an assistive device using 3D printing. Assistive Technology, 33(6), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2019.1634660
WaldburgerL.SchallerR.FurthmüllerC.SchrepferL.SchaeferD. J.KaempfenA. (2021). 3D-printed hand splints versus thermoplastic splints: A randomized controlled pilot feasibility trial. International Journal of Bioprinting, 8(1), 474. https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v8i1.474
48.
WesselsR.de WitteL.AndrichR.FerrarioM.PerssonJ.ObergB.OortwijnW.VanbeekumT.LorentsenO. (2001). IPPA, a user-centred approach to assess effectiveness of assistive technology provision. Technology and Disability, 13, 105–115. https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-2000-13203
49.
WesselsR.DijcksB.SoedeM.GelderblomG. J.de WitteL. (2003). Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview. Technology and Disability, 15(4), 231–238. https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-2003-15404
50.
WesselsR.PerssonJ.LorentsenØ.AndrichR.FerrarioM.OortwijnW.VanbeekumT.BrodinH.de WitteL. (2002). IPPA: Individually prioritised problem assessment. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-2002-14310
51.
WielandtT.StrongJ. (2000). Compliance with prescribed adaptive equipment: A literature review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(2), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260006300204
52.
WojciechowskiE.ChangA. Y.BalassoneD.FordJ.ChengT. L.LittleD.MenezesM. P.HoganS.BurnsJ. (2019). Feasibility of designing, manufacturing and delivering 3D printed ankle-foot orthoses: A systematic review. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 12(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-019-0321-6
