The benefits of assistive technology use by persons with physical conditions: An examination of difficulty levels in areas of functioning

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The benefit of assistive technology (AT) use has been well documented by disability researchers. However, the relationship by areas of functioning has been underexplored.

OBJECTIVE:

Examine the relationship among AT, demographic characteristics(e.g. race, gender, marital status, educational attainment, and employment status), health coverage, and difficulty levels in areas of functioning in persons with physical conditions.

METHODS:

Data were analyzed from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) dataset collected in the U.S. in 2013. Descriptive statistics, ordered logit models and seemingly unrelated estimates were performed.

RESULTS:

Among persons with a physical condition who used AT and persons who did not use AT, a statistical difference was observed for factors such as race (p < 0.001), marital status (p < 0.001), employment status (p < 0.001), and health coverage (p < 0.001). Significant difficulties for persons with physical conditions, regardless of AT use, were observed in areas of functioning such as lifting, walking, standing, bending, reaching overhead, and grasping with fingers. However, a comparison of AT use vs. no AT use, revealed a substantial positive impact, indicated by parameter estimates, for areas of functioning related to mobility and ambulation such as walking up 10 steps(p = 0.023), walking 3 blocks (p = 0.002), walking 1 mile (p = 0.005), and standing 20 minutes (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS:

Differences between persons with a physical condition who used AT and persons who did not use AT were observed based on race, marital status, employment status, and health coverage. The benefits of AT use for mobility and ambulation were evident in this study. Future policies and research should continually encourage the use of AT to assist with difficulties in various areas of functioning.

Keywords

Assistive technology physical conditions areas of functioning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Public Law 100-407. The Technology-related Assistance for Individuals with Conditions Act of 1988.

RESNA. (1992). Project director's handbook. Arlington, VA: Author.

Loggins,

., Alston,

., & Lewis,

. (2014). Utilization of assistive technology by persons with physical conditions: an examination of predictive factors by race, Condition and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9(6), 487-492, DOI:10.3109/ 17483107.2013.836683.

Lewis,

., Cooper,

., Seelman,

., Cooper,

., & Schein,

. (2012). Assistive technology in rehabilitation: Improving impact through policy. Rehabilitation, Research, Policy, and Education, 26, 19-32.

Scherer,

., & Glueckauf,

. (2005). Assessing the benefits of assistive technologies for activities and participation, Rehabilitation Psychology, 50, 132-141.

Phillips,

., & Zhao,

. (1993). Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology, 5(1), 36-45.

Uslan,

. (1992). Barriers to acquiring assistive technology: Cost and lack of information. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 86(9), 402-407.

Scherer,

. (1993). Living in the State of Stuck. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

Bateni,

., & Maki,

. (2005). Assistive devices for balance and mobility: benefits, demands, adverse consequences. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilation, 86, 134-145.

10.

Kaye,

., Yeager,

., & Reed,

. (2008). Disparities in usage of assistive technology among people with conditions. Assistive Technology, 20(4), 194-203.

11.

Agree,

., & Freedman,

. (2000). Incorporating assistive devices into community-based long-term care: An analysis of the potential for substitution and supplementation. Journal of Aging and Health, 12(3), 426-450.

12.

Cowan,

., Fregly,

., Boninger,

., Chan,

., Rodgers,

., & Reinkensmeyer,

. (2012). Recent trends in assistive technology for mobility. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 9-20. DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-9-20.

13.

Scherer

., & Galvin,

. (1996). An outcomes perspective of quality pathways to the most appropriate technology. In: JC Galvin, MJ Scherer (eds) Evaluating, Selecting and Using Appropriate Assistive Technology. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen, 1-26.

14.

Kaye,

., Kang,

., & LaPlante,

M.P

. (2000). Mobility Device Use in the United States. Condition Statistics Report, (14). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Condition and Rehabilitation Research.

15.

Iezzoni,

., McCarthy,

., Davis,

., & Siebens,

. (2001). Mobility difficulties are not only a problem of old age. Journal of General Interal Medicine, 16, 235-243.

16.

Schwanke,

., & Smith,

. (2005). Assistive technology outcomes in work settings. Work, 24, 195-204.

17.

Garcia,

., Andrews,

., & Johnson,

. (2014). Hand grasping assistance device. Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, 1-3.

18.

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). April 2015. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/data/meps/index.html

19.

Lewis,

., Shamburger,

., Head,

., Armstrong,

., & West,

. (2007). Section 21 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments and diversity articles. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26, 89-96.

20.

Middleton,

., Rollins,

., & Harley,

. (1999, April). The historical and political context of the civil rights of persons with conditions: A multicultural perspective for counselors. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 27, 11(+).

21.

Alston,

., Lewis,

., & Loggins,

. (2014). Assistive technology and veterans with severe disabilities: Examining the relationship among race, personal factors, medical support, income support and use. Medical Care, 52, S17-S24.

22.

Jones,

., McEwen,

., & Hansen,

. (2003). Use of power mobility for a young child with spinal muscular atrophy. Physical Therapy, 83, 253-262.

23.

Tefft,

., Guerette,

., Furumasu,

. (1999). Cognitive predictors of young children's readiness for powered mobility. Dev Med Child Neurol, 41, 665-670.

24.

Hays,

. (1987). Childhood motor impairments: clinical overview and scope of the problem. In: Jaffe KM, ed. Childhood Powered Mobility: Developmental, Technical, and Clinical Perspectives. Proceedings of the RESNA First Northwest Regional Conference. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America, 1-10.

25.

Butler,

. (1997). Wheelchair toddlers. In: Pediatric Powered Mobility: Developmental Perspectives, Technical Issues, Clinical Approaches. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America, 1-6.

26.

StataCorp. (2015). Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

27.

Srivastava,

V.K

., & Giles,

D.E

. (1987). Seemingly unrelated regression equations modesls: Estimation and inference. New York: Dekker.

28.

Tshiswaka,

., Clay,

., Chiu,

., Alston,

., & Lewis,

. (2016). Assistive technology use by condition type and race: exploration of a population-based health survey, Condition and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 11(2), 124-132, DOI:10.3109/17483107.2015.1090487.

29.

Corman,

., & Freedman,

. (2008). Racial and ethnic disparities in mobility device use in late life. J Gerontology Social Science, 63B, S34-41.

30.

Erickson,

., Lee,

., & von Schrader,

. (2009). Condition Status Report: United States. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Employment and Condition Institute (EDI); 2011.

31.

Erickson,

., Lee,

., & von Schrader,

. Condition Statistics from the 2009 American Community Survey (ACS). Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Condition Demographics and Statistics (StatsRRTC); 2011. Available from: www.conditionstatistics.org [last accessed March 23, 2016].

32.

Czaja,

., Weber,

., & Nair,

. (1993). A human factor analysis of ADL activities: A capability-demand approach. Journal of Gerontology, 48, 44-48.

33.

Rogers,

., Fernandez,

., & Bohiken,

. (2001). Training to reduce postural sway and increase functional reach in the elderly. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 11(4), 291-298.