Resources search

Presented at the Disability Innovation Summit: Inclusive Interactions conference organised by the GDI hub on 13 Sept 2023.

A discussion concerning disability dongles (expensive technical solutions to disability problems without sufficient design input from disabled people - examples include a stair climbing wheelchair and an exoskeleton). Setting up networks of disabled people to input requirements, contextualisation of issues (for example the lack of repair facilities for wheelchairs especially in the global south), telemedicine, and the difficulties in appropriate funding for appropriate projects are discussed.

Estimates of the birth prevalence of clubfoot in low and middle income settings range from 0.5 to 2 per 1000 births. However, there is currently no estimate of global birth prevalence of clubfoot.

A systematic review of studies was carried out reporting the birth prevalence of clubfoot across all countries and regions worldwide in the last 10 years. Africa Wide Information, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, LILACS and Medline databases were searched for relevant studies from January 1st 2012 to February 9th 2023. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using the inverse variance method, and a random effects model was applied to account for heterogeneity between studies.

eClinicalMedicine,  Vol 63 September, 2023

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102178

With the increased attention to disability as a vulnerability criterion in the Sustainable Development Goals, international organizations and NGOs within the international development sector have started to pay explicit attention to persons with disabilities, including the collection of data on persons with disabilities. The Washington Group Short Set of Questions, which focuses on functional limitations, has been gaining popularity as an assessment tool for disability. This set of questions reflects a categorization of disability that does not necessarily correspond with subjective disability assessments, such as the yes/no question (“do you have a disability?”) which many development actors have used in their assessment tools when they collect disability data This study compares the subjective and the functional limitations assessment tools for disability to answer the question: do they identify the same individuals as persons with disabilities? Based on a survey carried out amongst persons with disabilities in Cambodia, we included both the Washington Group Short Set and a subjective question asking respondents to self-identify their disability type. We find that, although all respondents self-identified as disabled, not all respondents would be considered disabled according to the Washington Group Short Set of questions. In addition, there is little overlap between specific disability types according to a subjective classification method and the domains of functioning measured through the Washington Group methodology. Our findings affirm that categorization as abled or disabled depends on the tool used. This is important, as the assessment approach chosen by those collecting disability data can shape the design choices of policies and programs, and determine who benefits.

Functional limitations become more prevalent as populations age, emphasising an increasingly urgent need for assistive technology (AT). Critical to meeting this need trajectory is understanding AT access in older ages. Yet few publications examine this from a longitudinal perspective.

This review aims to identify and collate what data exist globally, seeking all population-based cohorts and repeated cross-sectional surveys through the Maelstrom Research Catalogue (searched May 10, 2022) and the Disability Data Report (published 2022), respectively. Datasets incorporating functional limitations modules and question(s) dedicated to AT, with a wave of data collection since 2009, were included.

International Journal of Population Data Science; 2023

Vol. 8 No. 1 (2023): IJPDS Standard Issue
 https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v8i1.1901

Despite increased focus on the need for assistive technology (AT), along with estimates of need and gaps in provision in humanitarian contexts, very little is actually known about how people who need AT are managing in these contexts. To address this need, this study explored four main questions: 

What do we currently know about the need for AT in humanitarian contexts?
How is this need currently met?
What gaps are there in the evidence about these needs?
What mechanisms are needed to ensure provision of AT in humanitarian contexts? 

It explored these questions through individual interviews with AT users and their families, as well as people working in the sector, in two humanitarian response contexts: Bangladesh and Jordan. In Bangladesh, we partnered with CBM Global and their local partner, the Centre for Disability in Development, and in Jordan, all those interviewed were beneficiaries of HelpAge International.

The questions focused on the areas identified as gaps in the initial literature review, and used qualitative methodologies to probe and gain further insight into gaps across the entire AT ecosystem.

In the Asia Pacific region, UNFPA and partners work together to implement the Incheon Strategy to “Make the Right Real” for Persons with Disabilities. The Incheon Strategy is the region’s first set of disability-specific development goals to track progress towards the fulfilment of rights of persons with disabilities.

In the region, it is estimated that there are over 650 million persons with disabilities. However, without accurate, timely and disaggregated data, countries are unable to develop effective policies and programmes, monitor the wellbeing of persons with disabilities and evaluate the equity and impact of development efforts. This endangers country commitments to ‘leave no one behind’ and undermines their obligations to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

This groundbreaking report demonstrates the importance of ensuring data is inclusive and provides recommendations for immediate action in order to improve the collection, analysis and reporting of disability data

Assistive technology (AT) includes assistive products (APs) and related services that can improve health and well-being, enable increased independence and foster participation for people with functional difficulties, including older adults and people with impairments or chronic health conditions. This paper uses the umbrella term ‘functional difficulty’ (FD) to refer to all of these groups. This systematic review was undertaken to identify studies presenting population-based estimates of need and coverage for five APs (hearing aids, limb prostheses, wheelchairs, glasses and personal digital assistants) grouped by four functional domains (hearing, mobility, vision and cognition).

BMJ Glob Health. 2022; 7(1): e007662

doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007662

It is essential to understand the strategies and processes which are deployed currently across the Assistive Technology (AT) space toward measuring innovation. The main aim of this paper is to identify functional innovation strategies and processes which are being or can be deployed in the AT space to increase access to AT globally.

Assistive Technology 
The Official Journal of RESNA
Volume 33, 2021 - Issue sup1: Companion Papers to the Global Report on Assistive Technology
 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2021.1970653

This article explores COVID-19 related experiences of disabled people in Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria, Nepal and Uganda. Narrative interviews generated storied responses, focussing on respondents' priorities, which enabled us to hear what was most significant for them and their families. 143 interviews were conducted online or by phone by 7 local researchers (3 disabled), with appropriate inclusive support. Nearly everyone was interviewed twice to capture the progression of impacts over time. The data was analysed thematically through a virtual participatory approach. An overarching 'subjective' theme of feelings experienced by the participants was labelled 'destabilisation, disorientation and uncertainty'. We also identified 'concrete' or material impacts. People experienced various dilemmas such as choosing between securing food and keeping safe, and tensions between receiving support and feeling increased vulnerability or dependence, with interplay between the emotions of fear, loss and hope. We found both the concept of liminality and grief models productive in understanding the progression of participants' experiences. Disabled people reported the same feelings, difficulties and impacts as others, reported in other literature, but often their pre-existing disadvantages have been exacerbated by the pandemic, including poverty, gender and impairment related stresses and discrimination, inaccessible services or relief, and exclusion from government initiatives.