Information Management for the Assistive Technology Provision in Community: Perspectives of Local Policymakers and Health Service Providers.
Suchitporn Lersilp, Supawadee Putthinoi, Sayaka Okahashi
PMID 29681786WHAT IT FOUND
Community records for assistive devices had no database, and details were limited to name and gender.
Most devices given to 289 people with disabilities were second-hand, borrowed, and low-tech mobility items.
Key findings
01None of the four community areas had a database management system for assistive technology provision, and records contained no personal information except name and gender.
02Among 289 people with disability who received assistive technology, most devices were second-hand (57.24%) and borrowed (57.59%), and all were low-tech mobility devices.
03Local administrators and health service providers described incomplete records, different policies across organizations, and possible improvements such as a linked lending system or a community assistive technology center.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study covered only four community areas in Chiang Mai, Thailand, so it may not describe other settings. It used general medical records and informal notebooks, so details about people with disabilities and devices may be incomplete. Only 16 key informants were interviewed, and their views are perspectives, not measured outcomes. The paper reports device counts and percentages, but not whether devices were accepted, used, or improved function. One person received two devices, so device counts and person counts are not interchangeable.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that assistive technology improved function or that a lending system or AT center was tested and effective. The study describes records and perspectives only.