In recent years, the interest of performing research about and providing e-services for individuals with disabilities has grown significantly. However, there is a knowledge gap in the existing literature on how to stimulate the pre-requisites needed for a sustainable implementation of e-services.
AIM AND METHOD:
The study aims to contribute to this knowledge gap by performing semi-structured email interviews with twelve project coordinators from the EU programmes of FP6-IST and FP7-ICT.
RESULTS:
The findings showed that knowledge-based and financially based resources, the complexity of the project context, ethical issues and the structural responsibility of the implementation process were key issues in creating a sustainable implementation. Furthermore, users often were not able to perceive added value from the e-services as they seldom were developed beyond prototypes within the research project.
CONCLUSION:
The implementation of e-services and/or ICT based applications for individuals with disabilities face similar challenges to the challenges that have been identified when implementing IT-based innovations. Further studies should focus on how users can be involved in the choice and development of e-services they understand as effective, and how to ensure that the implementation strategy will contribute to long-term social inclusion, that is, sustainability.
DurlakJADuPreEP. Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2008; 41(3-4): 327-50.
2.
BarrettSM. Implementation studies: time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20 years of implementation studies. Public Administration. 2004; 82(2): 249-62.
3.
O’TooleLJ, Jr. Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2000; 10(2): 263-88.
4.
O’tooleLJ. The theory-practice issue in policy implementation research. Public Administration. 2004; 82(2): 309-29.
5.
HanfKScharpfFW. Interorganizational policy making: limits to coordination and central control: Sage Publications (CA); 1978.
6.
HjernB. Implementation research: The link gone missing. JSTOR; 1982.
7.
HullCJHjernB. Helping small firms grow: An implementation approach: Croom Helm; 1987.
8.
SabatierPA. Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: a critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy. 1986; 6(1): 21-48.
9.
SchofieldJ. Time for a revival? Public policy implementation: a review of the literature and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2001; 3(3): 245-63.
10.
DeLeonP. Models of policy discourse: insights versus prediction. Policy Studies Journal. 1998; 26(1): 147-61.
11.
VimarlundVKellerC. The many faces of implementation. Vinnova; 2014.
12.
WinklerSLRomeroSPratherERamroopMSlaibeEChristensenM. Innovative power wheelchair control interface: a proof-of-concept study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2016; 70(2): 7002350010p1-p5.
13.
GeigerBEvansRCellettiMSmithKHO’NealMRFirsing IIIS, et al. The healthy web access to online health information for individuals with disabilities. Global Journal of Health Education and Promotion. 2011; 14(1).
14.
SasvariP. The Effects of Technology and Innovation on Society. arXiv preprint arXiv:13073911. 2013.
15.
StephanidisC. Editorial: disabled and elderly people in the Information Society. ERCIM News. 1997; (28): 4-5.
16.
TongHMLaiDWZengQXuWY. Effects of social exclusion on depressive symptoms: elderly Chinese living alone in Shanghai, China. Journal of Cross-cultural Gerontology. 2011; 26(4): 349-64.
17.
ManzoorMVimarlundV. E-services for the social inclusion of people with disabilities: A literature review. Technology and Disability. 2017; 29(1-2): 15-33.
18.
SuhM. Socially-smart computing to support older adults with severe visual impairments: Proof-of-concept. Technology. 2010; 9(4): 472-83.
19.
NorvalC. Improving the Inclusivity of Older Adults on Social Networking Sites: Recommendations for Design and Practice: University of Dundee; 2014.
20.
OlbrichSTrauthEMNiedermanFGregorS. Inclusive Design in IS: Why Diversity Matters. CAIS. 2015; 37: 37.
21.
KellerSOwensJParkerC. Improving online access for people with disabilities. ECIS 2000 Proceedings. 2000: 32.
22.
ChoudrieJBrinkmanW-PPathaniaR, eds. Diffusion theory and the digital divide in e-services: an empirical investigation of two local areas in the UK. ECIS; 2006.
23.
TuunanenTPeffersKHeblerS. Designed procedures for engineering system feature requirements with users who are blind. JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application. 2011; 12(1): 23.
24.
Bobiller-ChaumonM-EDuboisMSandoz-GuermondF. Study of conditions of use of E-services accessible to visually disabled persons. arXiv preprint arXiv:07122168. 2007.
25.
VimarlundVOlveN-G. Using ICT to Transform Elderly Healthcare. 2007.
26.
VimarlundVOlveN-GScandurraIKochS. Organizational effects of information and communication technology (ICT) in elderly homecare: a case study. Health Informatics Journal. 2008; 14(3): 195-210.
27.
BalkaEDoyle-WatersMLecznarowiczDFitzGeraldJM. Technology, governance and patient safety: systems issues in technology and patient safety. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2007; 76: S35-S47.
28.
Lockamy IIIASmithDL. Telemedicine: a process enabler for enhanced healthcare delivery systems. Business Process Management Journal. 2009; 15(1): 5-19.
29.
MukherjeeAMcGinnisJ. E-healthcare: an analysis of key themes in research. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing. 2007; 1(4): 349-63.
30.
BergmoTS. Economic evaluation in telemedicine-still room for improvement. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2010; 16(5): 229-31.
31.
PalmJ-MDartTDupuisILeneveutLDegouletP, eds. Clinical information system post-adoption evaluation at the georges pompidou university hospital. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings; 2010: American Medical Informatics Association.
32.
ColemanMB. Successful implementation of assistive technology to promote access to curriculum and instruction for students with physical disabilities. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services. 2011; 30(2): 2-22.
33.
BonnieRJFulcoCELivermanCT. Trauma Care. 1999.
34.
AbbottA. Europe’s premier funding agency measures its impact. Nature. 2016; 535(7613): 477-8.
35.
CRaDIS. Information and Communication Technologies theme under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7 ICT) 2015 [cited 2018 Jan 3]. Available from: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/language-technologies/fp7-ict_en.html.
36.
CRaDIS. FP6-IST – Information Society Technologies: thematic priority under the specific programme “Integrating and strengthening the European research area” (2002–2006) European Commission 2014 [cited 2018 Feb 20]. Available from: http://cordis.europa.eu/programme/rcn/711_en.html.
37.
JamesNBusherH. Credibility, authenticity and voice: Dilemmas in online interviewing. Qualitative Research. 2006; 6(3): 403-20.
38.
BurnsE. Developing email interview practices in qualitative research. Sociological Research Online. 2010; 15(4): 8.
39.
GraneheimUHLundmanB. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today. 2004; 24(2): 105-12.
40.
EloSKyngäsH. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008; 62(1): 107-15.
41.
PasqualottoEFedericiSSimonettaAOlivetti BelardinelliM. Usability of brain computer interfaces. Assistive Technology Research Series. 2011: 481-8.
42.
PillingerDJ. Disability and the Quality of Services. Irish and European perspectives. 2002.
43.
KatesRWParrisTMLeiserowitzAA. What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment (Washington DC). 2005; 47(3): 8-21.
