Christy Hogan, Louise Gustafsson, Amelia Di Tommaso, Tenelle Hodson, Michelle Bissett, Camila Shirota
{"title":"Establishing the normative and comparative needs of assistive technology provision in Queensland from the agency and funding scheme perspective.","authors":"Christy Hogan, Louise Gustafsson, Amelia Di Tommaso, Tenelle Hodson, Michelle Bissett, Camila Shirota","doi":"10.1017/BrImp.2023.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Assistive technology services and devices support the participation and inclusion of people living with disability. In Australia, the regulatory bodies, agencies and schemes that manage assistive technology provision are governed by national and / or state-based Acts and Legislation. This study examined the assistive technology sector from the perspective of the regulatory bodies, agencies and schemes.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>Regulatory bodies, agencies and schemes that manage funding for assistive technology in Australia were identified by the research team. A website audit reviewed publicly available documents and information. Semi-structured interviews with representatives from the agencies and schemes were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The audit (<i>n</i> =17) found that the range and level of information publicly available was variable. The availability of assistive technology for driving and transport, design and building for access and safety, and mobility was most often promoted. The qualitative findings (<i>n</i> = 11) indicated variability and challenges within four themes: <i>operationalising the legislation</i>; <i>internal assistive technology processes; reasonable and necessary;</i> and <i>risks in the assistive technology pathway</i>.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regulatory bodies, agencies and schemes are critical to the effectiveness of the sector. The findings identified opportunities for the organisations to review how internal processes are communicated publicly, and for the sector to address the perceived risks related to health professional availability, knowledge and skills, and limited accessibility to trial assistive technology. Subsequent studies explored the perspectives of the assistive technology advisors and suppliers and the recipients of assistive technology services and devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":18699,"journal":{"name":"Modernism/modernity","volume":"2 1","pages":"204-218"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modernism/modernity","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2023.10","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aims: Assistive technology services and devices support the participation and inclusion of people living with disability. In Australia, the regulatory bodies, agencies and schemes that manage assistive technology provision are governed by national and / or state-based Acts and Legislation. This study examined the assistive technology sector from the perspective of the regulatory bodies, agencies and schemes.
Design and methods: Regulatory bodies, agencies and schemes that manage funding for assistive technology in Australia were identified by the research team. A website audit reviewed publicly available documents and information. Semi-structured interviews with representatives from the agencies and schemes were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Findings: The audit (n =17) found that the range and level of information publicly available was variable. The availability of assistive technology for driving and transport, design and building for access and safety, and mobility was most often promoted. The qualitative findings (n = 11) indicated variability and challenges within four themes: operationalising the legislation; internal assistive technology processes; reasonable and necessary; and risks in the assistive technology pathway.
Conclusions: Regulatory bodies, agencies and schemes are critical to the effectiveness of the sector. The findings identified opportunities for the organisations to review how internal processes are communicated publicly, and for the sector to address the perceived risks related to health professional availability, knowledge and skills, and limited accessibility to trial assistive technology. Subsequent studies explored the perspectives of the assistive technology advisors and suppliers and the recipients of assistive technology services and devices.
期刊介绍:
Concentrating on the period extending roughly from 1860 to the present, Modernism/Modernity focuses on the methodological, archival, and theoretical exigencies particular to modernist studies. It encourages an interdisciplinary approach linking music, architecture, the visual arts, literature, and social and intellectual history. The journal"s broad scope fosters dialogue between social scientists and humanists about the history of modernism and its relations tomodernization. Each issue features a section of thematic essays as well as book reviews and a list of books received. Modernism/Modernity is now the official journal of the Modernist Studies Association.