Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Technology and Disability: Assessment Needs and Potential

  • John Hutton (a1) and Jan Persson (a2)

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.

Copyright

References

Hide All
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.
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, 4355.
3.Canadian Society for the ICIDH. Comments on the proposition of revision of the handicap concept. ICIDH International Network, 1990, 3.
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.
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.
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, 2741.
7.Enders, A., & Hall, M. (eds.) Assistive technology sourcebook. Washington DC: RESNA Press Publishers, 1990, 72101.
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, 115.
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, 1425.
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, 4664.
11.Jonsson, E., & Reiser, S.J. Editors' introduction. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 12.
12.Kirshner, B., & Guyatt, G.A methodological framework for assessing health indices. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1985, 38, 2736.
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.
14.Lawton, M. P.The functional assessment of elderly people. Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 1971, 19, 465–81.
15.McKenna, M., Maynard, A., & Wright, K.Is rehabilitation cost effective? York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Discussion Paper 101, 1992.
16.Nagi, S. Z.Disability and rehabilitation. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1969.
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.
18.Nordenfelt, L.On the notions of disability and handicap. Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare, 1993, 2, 1724.
19.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Technology and handicapped people. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.
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.
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, 735.
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.
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.
24.Turner, R. R. Rehabilitation. In Spilker, B. (ed.), Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, Ltd., 1990, 247–67.
25.United Nations. World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons. New York: United Nations, 1982.
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.
27.Wood, P. H. N.Classification of impairment and handicap. Geneva: World Health Organization, Document WHO/ICDP/REV-CONF/75.15, 1975.
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.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed