Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:03:35.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology and Disability: Assessment Needs and Potential

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

John Hutton  and
Jan Persson
John Hutton
Affiliation:
Battelle MEDTAP, London
Jan Persson
Affiliation:
Linköping University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstarct

In assessing technologies for disabled people, the aims of habilitative or rehabilitative interventions, the concepts of disability and handicap, and the potential of existing and emerging technologies in various social arenas, as well as the structure of service delivery systems, are of importance. A discussion of these issues in the light of previous work on cost and effectiveness in the field is given.

Type
Special Section: Technology and Disability
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Spring 1995 , pp. 135 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Alastuey, J., Kerdraon, M., Persson, J., Brodin, H., & Petäkoski-Hult, T.Legal and macroeconomic factors impacting rehabilitation technology availability: Assessment and refinement of existing socio-economic models. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, DG XIII, TIDE Study 309 Horizontal European Activities in Rehabilitation Technology, Deliverable D2.2, 03 1994.Google Scholar
2.Ben-Sira, Z.Disability, stress, and readjustment: The function of the professional's latent goals and affective behavior in rehabilitation. Social Science and Medicine, 1986, 23, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Canadian Society for the ICIDH. Comments on the proposition of revision of the handicap concept. ICIDH International Network, 1990, 3.Google Scholar
4.Canadian Society for the ICIDH Consultation. Proposal for the revision of the third level of the ICIDH: The handicap. ICIDH International Network, 1989, 2.Google Scholar
5.DeJong, G. Medical rehabilitation outcome measurement in a changing health care market. In Fuhrer, M. J. (ed.), Rehabilitation outcomes: Analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 1987, 261–71.Google Scholar
6.Ebrahim, S. Measurement of impairment, disability, and handicap. In Hopkins, A. & Costain, D. (eds.), Measuring the outcomes of medical care. London: Royal College of Physicians of London, 1990, 27–41.Google Scholar
7.Enders, A., & Hall, M. (eds.) Assistive technology sourcebook. Washington DC: RESNA Press Publishers, 1990, 72–101.Google Scholar
8.Fuhrer, M. J. Overview of outcome analysis in rehabilitation. In Fuhrer, M. J. (ed.), Rehabilitation outcomes: Analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 1987, 1–15.Google Scholar
9.Granger, C. V. A conceptual model for functional assessment. In Granger, C. V. & Gresham, G. E. (eds.), Functional assessment in rehabilitation medicine. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1984, 14–25.Google Scholar
10.Jette, A. M. Concepts of health and methodological issues in functional assessment. In Granger, C. V. & Gresham, G. E (eds.), Functional assessment in rehabilitation medicine. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1984, 46–64.Google Scholar
11.Jonsson, E., & Reiser, S.J. Editors' introduction. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 1–2.Google Scholar
12.Kirshner, B., & Guyatt, G.A methodological framework for assessing health indices. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1985, 38, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Koopmanschap, M. A., & van Ineveld, B. M.Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease, Social Science and Medicine, 1992, 34, 1005–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Lawton, M. P.The functional assessment of elderly people. Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 1971, 19, 465–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.McKenna, M., Maynard, A., & Wright, K.Is rehabilitation cost effective? York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Discussion Paper 101, 1992.Google Scholar
16.Nagi, S. Z.Disability and rehabilitation. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
17.Nagi, S. Z. Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. In Sussmann, M. B. (ed.), Sociology and rehabilitation. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1965.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Nordenfelt, L.On the notions of disability and handicap. Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare, 1993, 2, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Technology and handicapped people. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.Google Scholar
20.Parker, M., Forsberg, S., de Witte, L. et al. Rehabilitation technology service delivery: Final report on service delivery. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, DG XIII, TIDE Study 309 Horizontal European Activities in Rehabilitation Technology, Deliverable C 5.2, 09 1994.Google Scholar
21.Parmenter, T. R. An analysis of the dimensions of quality of life for people with physical disabilities. In Prior, R. I. (ed.), Quality of life for handicapped people. (Rehabilitation Education Series: Vol. 3). Routledge: Chapman and Hall, 1988, 7–35.Google Scholar
22.Persson, J., & Brodin, H.Legal and macroeconomic factors impacting rehabilitation technology availability: Existing socio-economic models. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, DG XIII, TIDE Study 309 Horizontal European Activities in Rehabilitation Technology, Deliverable D2.1, 08 1993.Google Scholar
23.Spilker, B., Molinek, F. R. Jr., Johnston, K. A., Simpson, R. L. Jr., & Tilson, H. H.Quality of life bibliography and indexes. Medical Care, 28, Supplement, 1990, DS1–DS77.Google ScholarPubMed
24.Turner, R. R. Rehabilitation. In Spilker, B. (ed.), Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, Ltd., 1990, 247–67.Google Scholar
25.United Nations. World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons. New York: United Nations, 1982.Google Scholar
26.Wiersma, D., DeJong, A., & Ormel, J.The Groningen social disabilities schedule: Development, relationship with ICIDH, and psychometric properties. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 1988, 11, 213–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Wood, P. H. N.Classification of impairment and handicap. Geneva: World Health Organization, Document WHO/ICDP/REV-CONF/75.15, 1975.Google Scholar
28.World Health Organization. International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps: A manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1980.Google Scholar