Satisfaction with Assistive Technology among Users with disabilities: Findings from a Sub-national Study in India

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3236619/v1

Background

User satisfaction with Assistive Technology (AT) is one of the integral outcomes of successful AT service. The current study aimed to estimate the satisfaction with AT and reasons for dissatisfaction among users with disabilities in India

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in eight districts, representing four zones of India, using the WHO Rapid Assistive Technology Assessment tool. Multi-stage cluster random sampling along with the probability proportional to size technique was used to select smaller administrative units from the larger ones. Satisfaction was reported in terms of assistive products and service delivery.

Results

In total, 8486 participants were surveyed out of 8964 individuals enumerated with a response rate of 94.6%. Around 22.2% (1888) of participants with disabilities reported using AT, out of which 7.8% (147) were dissatisfied with their products. The proportion of respondents with disabilities reporting satisfaction with their products, AT services in terms of assessment and training, and AT repair and maintenance were 92.2%, 88.4%, and 85.2%. However, 12.4% (234) and 14.9% (282) of respondents reported that their AT was not suitable for home and public environments, respectively. Another 13.4% (253) respondents reported that their AT does not help them in executing their daily living activities. Discomfort (56.6%), poor fitting (37.7%), low quality of service (20.7%), and poor aesthetic values (18.9%) were identified as reasons for dissatisfaction. Satisfaction was good for AT received from friends and family but was poor for those received from the public sector.

Conclusion

The study shows that overall satisfaction and suitability with AT were high among users with disabilities, yet few have reported barriers to effective device use and facing challenges in accessing repair and follow-up services.

Health sciences/Health care

Health sciences/Health care/Public health

Health sciences/Health care/Public health/Population screening

Assistive Technology

Assistive Technology users

people with disability

satisfaction

access

India

Assistive Technology (AT) has been gaining significant global attention in recent years within the context of health and well-being, and quality of life improvement. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that about 2.5 billion, i.e., one in three people, in the world need at least one or more assistive technology to improve their daily functioning and independent living.^[1] However, only one in ten persons can access the AT they need. With increasing chronic debilitating health problems or diseases and population aging leading to functional limitations, AT requirement is expected to increase to 3.5 billion by 2050.^[2]

Evidence shows that AT provides effective support to persons with disabilities (PwDs), elders, and those with chronic health conditions in terms of independent living, everyday activities, occupational and educational performance, and even social inclusion.^[3][4][5][6] In addition, the use of AT helps to reduce the rate of institutionalization, injury, and burden to caregivers or family members.^[7] While ensuring access to AT in the country, the concept of quality of care and service should also be ensured. Access does not necessarily mean user satisfaction with products and services related to AT, or that a functional difficulty has been fully or even partially addressed. The WHO has described the indicator of AT satisfaction as the proportion of assistive product users who are satisfied with their assistive product(s) and related services, in different environments and activities, disaggregated by AT product type.^[2] A similar definition has been used by various researchers. ^[8][9]Therefore, satisfaction implies the use of AT with an underlying sub-dimension concerning AT products and service delivery. A systematic review of fifty-three studies concluded that the service delivery process contributes to the satisfaction with the usability of ATs in PwDs in relation to achieving aspirations in everyday activities.^[9]

Although user satisfaction is an important outcome measure for AT service, the measurement of satisfaction is challenging to date and there is a limited number of tools available for use among PwDs. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) is a 12-item outcome measure that assesses user satisfaction, including the physical characteristics of the products and service delivery process. ^[10][11] The challenge in measuring user satisfaction includes the multitude of ATs that are used, and various kinds of disability that might confound the assessment of satisfaction. Very often PwDs need multiple ATs, which need separate assessments for satisfaction. Such comprehensive indicators germane to AT satisfaction ideally need to be measured by conducting community-based epidemiological studies in different environments and among persons with various kinds of disabilities.

In India, the satisfaction rate with AT products and service delivery process is little or not known, and very limited studies are available on satisfaction-related indicators relating to spectacles use.^[12][13] The WHO reported that nearly 90% of people in need of AT live in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), at the same time there are limited data available on AT satisfaction across developing nations. Study measuring satisfaction is critically important since it is one of the overarching elements for AT adoption and participation. Therefore, the current study aimed to assess satisfaction with AT and reasons for dissatisfaction and unsuitability, using the WHO rapid assistive technology assessment (rATA) tool among persons with disabilities. The findings of the study may help to provide possible recommendations to improve assistive products and service quality in the country.

The detailed methodology, including the estimation of the sample size, sampling technique, was published in the previous paper.^[14] However, briefly, this cross-sectional study was conducted in eight districts selected from four different zones of India from November to December 2021. Individuals of all age groups irrespective of health conditions or functional limitations were included in the study. Further, the sampling technique was a multi-stage cluster random sampling along with a compact segment sampling for household selection. The census enumeration block (CEB), also named primary sampling units for the present study, was listed in each selected district. Using probability proportional to size, thirteen CEBs were selected in each district. Each CEB has a population of approximately 1000 considering all age groups. The study aimed to select 80 to 100 individuals regardless of the age of groups from each CEB.

In compact segment technique, a CEB was divided into segments of equal population size that had approximately twenty households each (around 80 to 100 population, assuming average family size of 4–5 in India). One segment was selected randomly from each CEB and the survey proceeded from one end to the other till all twenty households were covered.

Data collection

Two districts, in each of the four zones of the country, North, East, West, and South, were included in the survey. A total five public health institutes or medical colleges, each located in one of the five zones were involved in the survey. One area supervisor and one survey manager were provided training for the study using the World Health Organization, Rapid Assistive Technology Assessment (WHO-rATA) tool. The study tool used was the WHO rATA digital tool installed in the ArcGIS app. ^[15][16]

Measurement of satisfaction and suitability

User satisfaction implies perceptions of the quality of the services, about the physical characteristics of the product, the needs of clients, and the extent of alignment with clients’ priorities and aspirations. The WHO rATA tool included a Likert scale to measure the following satisfaction indicators with AT: Assistive products-reflects the physical characteristics of the products such as appearance, weight, durability, effectiveness, simplicity to use, comfort, and safety; assessment and training- reflect the provider competence, even being treated with respect and dignity, provision of all information, emotional support; repair and maintenance-reflects the access to services in getting repaired or fix a problem raised with products and simplicity in maintenance. The tool also consisted of a similar Likert scale to assess the suitability of AT in terms of its application at home and in a public environment, and daily household activities and participation in society.

Data management and analysis

For the current study, the study population were all participants who reported to be disabled and used AT. The data were analyzed using STATA version 15 (StataCorp 2015, Stata Statistical Software: Release 15, College Station, TX: StataCorp LP). The satisfaction was reported in terms of product satisfaction; services related to assessment and training, repair and maintenance of the products, and the suitability of the AT for use at home and public environment and participation in activities. The findings from the descriptive analysis were summarized as mean, percentages, and standard deviation. Chi-square was done to assess the association with various independent factors of AT satisfaction.

Ethics clearance and informed consent

The present study was a part of a main study conducted to estimate assistive technology service indicators using the WHO rATA tool. This main study was reviewed and approved by the Institute Ethics Committee of a tertiary care institute (Ref. no. IEC-632/03.09.2021), and it adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. The survey supervisor explained the study to each participant using the patient information sheet (PIS) after that the PIS was given to them. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardians for minors.

In total, 8486 participants were surveyed out of 8964 enumerations, with a response rate of 94.6%. Of the total respondents, 48.2% (4087) were males and 48.9% (4151) were urban residents. The highest proportion of respondents belonged to the age group 18–39 years (36.9%, 3130), followed by 40–59 years (25.3%, 2144, Table 1). Seeing disability (26.6%) was the most frequent among of all types of disabilities followed by mobility problems (11.9%) and hearing problems (3.4%, Table 1). Given any type of disability, 2700 participants have any form (some or severe or total) of disability.

The results showed that 1888 participants with disability used at least or one more AT (22.2%), with AT for seeing problems being the highest used among all types, reaching up to 91.4% of participants (1726), followed by AT use for mobility problems (566, 29.9%). As far as sources of AT is concerned, 67.4% (1273) of respondents obtained the AT by paying themselves (out-of-pocket), and 23.5% (444) reported that they got it from their friends or family. The rest 5.0% (94) received the AT from public health facilities and another 2.6% of users (49) received it from the non-government sectors or charity hospitals.

Table 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study participants (8486)
Characteristics	n	Percentages
Mean age (SD)	34.5 (20.4)
Age groups (in years)
< 17	2001	23.6
18–39	3130	36.9
40–59	144	25.3
60–79	1082	12.8
≥ 80	129	1.5
Sex
Male	4087	48.2
Female	4397	51.8
Place
Urban	4151	48.9
Rural	4335	51.1
Disabilities
Mobility	1015	11.9
Seeing	2256	26.6
Hearing	287	3.4
Communication	68	0.8
Cognitive	158	1.9
Self-care	125	1.5
Any form disabilities	2700	31.8
AT users among disabilities (1888)
Mobility	566	29.9
Seeing	1726	91.4
Hearing	143	7.5
Communication	22	1.2
Cognitive	77	4.1
Self-care	76	4.0

Satisfaction with assistive products

The results showed that approximately 92.1% of AT users (1740) found satisfaction with the products they used. But a smaller proportion 3.9% (74) of users were dissatisfied with their products, and another 3.9% (73) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (Table 2). The highest satisfaction has shown among users who had bought products by themselves followed by products provided by family members or friends (Table 2).

Among the 74 participants who had dissatisfied with AT, the most frequent reasons for poor satisfaction were pain and discomfort while using AT (56.8%, 42), and poor fitting of the devices (22.9%, 22), followed by less durability (12.2%, 9) and lack of aesthetic value (6.8%, 5) and feeling of unsafe and heaviness during use. Besides these, thirteen participants were dissatisfied due to the lack of availability of maintenance and repair services.

Satisfaction with assessment and training, repair and maintenance

Out of the 1888 PwDs who used AT, 88.4% of respondents reported that they were satisfied with the assessment and training received, and quite a similar proportion of participants (85.2%) reported satisfaction with AT repair and maintenance services. In contrast, a total of 24 (1.27%) of respondents were dissatisfied with the assessment and training of AT products, and 47 (2.48%) were dissatisfied with the repair, maintenance, and follow-up services based on their experiences, rest remaining neutral. Again, AT either procured from out-of-pocket payment or given by family members or friends was shown to have highest satisfaction among users as far as training and maintenance are concerned. The association between satisfaction with AT was statistically significant in those who had obtained AT from family or friends. (Table 2)

The major causes of dissatisfaction with assessment and training were poor quality (45.8%) of the service, higher costs of service utilization (33.3%), and long waiting time to access the service (20.8%, Fig. 1).

Table 2

Satisfaction with assistive products among persons with disability based on source of funding for AT (N = 1888)
Source of AT	Respondents	Satisfaction with Assistive products			Satisfaction with assessment and training			Satisfaction with repair or maintenance
		Yes	No.	p-value	Yes	No.	p-value	Yes	No.	p-value
	n,(%)	n,(%)	n,(%)		n,(%)	n,(%)		n,(%)	n,(%)
Government	94 (4.9)	85 (4.9)	5 (6.8)	0.4609	89 (5.3)	2 (8.3)	0.507	85 (5.3)	4 (8.5)	0.347
NGO/Charity	49 (2.6)	46 (2.6)	3 (4.0)	0.459	47 (2.8)	1 (4.2)	0.648	45 (2.8)	1 (2.1)	0.883
Employer/School	5 (0.3)	4 (0.2)	0	0.846	3 (0.2)	0	0.958	2 (0.1)	1 (2.1)	0.085
Insurance	1 (0.05)	1 (0.1)	0	0.959	1 (0.06)	0	0.986	1 (0.06)	0	0.972
Out-of-pocket (self)	1273 (67.4)	1167 (67.1)	54 (72.9)	0.292	1154 (69.1)	18 (75.0)	0.559	1120 (69.6)	34 (72.3)	0.704
Family/friends	444 (23.5)	420 (24.1)	10 (13.5)	0.029*	361 (21.6)	3 (12.5)	0.291	343 (21.3)	7 (14.9)	0.293
Others	13 (0.7)	8 (0.5)	2 (2.7)	0.066	6 (0.4)	0	0.918	5 (0.3)	0	0.866
Don’t Know	9 (0.5)	9 (0.5)	0	0.687	8 (0.5)	0	0.892	8 (0.5)	0	0.794
Total**	1888	1740 (92.2)	74 (3.9)		1669 (88.4)	24 (1.3)		1609 (85.2)	47 (2.5)
Statistically significant *Row Percentages

Suitability of assistive technology

Given the suitability of AT is concerned, 87.0% (1643) of the respondents reported that AT owned by them was suitable for use at home and nearby surrounding environment, but 3.2% (61) of respondents reported AT was unsuitable for the same ( Table 3). Further, 79.6% and 84.3% of participants said that AT they used was also suitable for the public environments and helped them do what they want in terms of daily living activities and self-care respectively. In addition, 3.7% and 2.8% of the respondents reported poor suitability of AT for public environments and daily activities respectively, while 11.2% and 10.6% reported moderate suitability.

There was a statistically significant association between obtaining the AT from the government sector and poor suitability in public environment (p-value < 0.05, Table 3). At the same time, AT obtained from friends or family members was significantly associated with better suitability for performing various daily living and self-care activities (p-value < 0.05, Table 3).

Considering the factors attributing unsuitability with AT, the main reasons were pain and discomfort (56.6%), poor fitting of the products (37.7%), less durability (20.7%), and poor appearance (18.9%). In addition, lack of accessibility at home environment (16.9%), public facilities (15.1%), the workplace (13.2%), and in transport locations (13.2%) were also reported as reasons for dissatisfaction (Fig. 2).

Table 3

Suitability of the AT for home and public environments and participation in activities based on source of funding for AT (N = 1888)
Source of AT	Total	Suitability of the AT for home and surroundings			Utility of the AT for participation in activities			Suitability of the AT for outdoor and public environments
		Yes	No	p value	Yes	No	p value	Yes	No	p value
	n,(%)	n,(%)	n,(%)		n,(%)	n,(%)		n,(%)	n,(%)
Government	94 (4.9)	84 (5.1)	6 (9.8)	0.1368	86 (5.4)	4 (7.54)	0.489	77 (5.1)	8 (11.4)	0.043*
NGO/Charity	49 (2.6)	42 (2.6)	3 (4.9)	0.290	41 (2.6)	3 (5.66)	0.217	38 (2.5)	4 (5.71)	0.148
Employer/School	5 (0.3)	4 (0.2)	1 (1.6)	0.179	4 (0.3)	1 (1.88)	0.160	4 (0.3)	0	0.833
Insurance	1 (0.05)	1 (0.06)	0	0.964	1 (0.06)	0	0.968	1 (0.07)	0	0.955
Out-of-pocket (self)	1273 (67.4)	1094 (66.6)	41 (67.2)	0.930	1071 (67.3)	35 (66.04)	0.835	1031 (68.6)	40 (57.1)	0.049*
Family/friends	444 (23.5)	400 (24.3)	9 (14.7)	0.078	372 (23.4)	6 (11.32)	0.032*	336 (22.4)	14 (20.0)	0.659
Others	13 (0.7)	10 (0.6)	1 (1.6)	0.388	8 (0.5)	4 (7.54)	0.000*	7 (0.5)	4 (5.71)	0.000*
Don’t Know	9 (0.5)	8 (0.5)	0	0.744	8 (0.5)	0	0.769	8 (0.5)	0	0.694
Total**	1888	1643 (87.0)	61 (3.2)		1591 (84.3)	53 (2.80)		1502 (79.5)	70 (3.7)
Statistically significant *Row Percentages

Understanding user satisfaction with AT is of paramount importance since it is one of the key predictors of AT adoption and participation. For example, when an AT is not suited with the client needs and has not fulfilled their priorities, the same will be abandoned or used sub-optimally. Among AT users, PWDs are the vulnerable population who require them the most compared to rest of the population. Disability, an umbrella term that covers impairment, activity limitation, and participation restriction, is an outcome of the negative interaction between intrinsic features of the person and features of the overall environment context in which person lives, works, and interacts with others^[17]. Assistive Technology helps PwDs to overcome this negative interaction that hinders their full participation at both personal as well as environmental levels and should compensate for decreased body function as well as prevent further loss of function and ability.

In LMICs, there has been identified a critical research gap in the context of satisfaction measurement among AT users. The current comprehensive study on AT satisfaction among disabled, the first of its kind to our knowledge in India, was part of a sub-national rATA study, conducted to understand various AT service indicators in the country. Overall, the results of the present study show that clients are moderately satisfied as far as characteristics of their assistive products are concerned; be it weight, appearance, simplicity of use, safety, durability, and effectiveness, and AT services being received in terms of assessment, training and repair and maintenance for products.

Higher satisfaction is observed in those users who obtain the AT from friends or family members or bought by themselves compared to other sources of AT. Although the present study does not identify the factors leading to satisfaction with products, other studies reported that ease of use, safety, lightweight, and feeling of comfort with products lead to better satisfaction. ^[18][9][19] In terms of suitability of AT, most of the participants felt that AT being owned by them is appropriate, useful, and appropriate for use at home, public environment, in executing daily living and self-care activities and visiting places like schools or colleges, workplaces, neighbourhoods, or going for leisure and recreational purposes.

The factors that lead to higher satisfaction in terms of services and suitability with AT are ease to operate, comfort, being treated with respect and dignity, emotional support, and customized AT, perhaps helping to align with the principle of a client-centered approach. Plethora of evidence exists that client-cantered approach is effective in increasing user satisfaction with AT services. ^{[9][20] [21]} However, future studies are warranted determine the various facilitators and barriers to satisfaction in AT usage. Furthermore, a pre-requisite for a client-centered approach for PWDs is teamwork, involving caregivers, family members, users, therapists, and support organizations. In India, the very nature and cultural adoption of joint family, multiple organizations working for disabilities along with favorable social capital may perhaps play an important role in satisfaction, and further helping to align with a client-centered approach. Studies from India reported that good supportive network involving relatives, friends, neighbours, makes a favourable social capital and also supports caregivers of PwDs or elderly population in bringing about a better quality of life and psychological well-being of the PwDs. ^[22][23] However, future studies, including qualitative studies, are required to quantify the relationship between social capital and AT satisfaction among PwDs. Besides, the advantage of self-purchased products is that they usually meet user’s expectation, thereby leading to satisfaction. Products being received at subsidized rates under various government schemes may also attribute to satisfaction, especially in low-income settings when there are no alternative source of AT. For example, ADIP scheme (Assistance to Disabled Persons) of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE) lists 51 assistive products for visual loss that can be accessed either free of charge or at subsidized rate according to the family income of the beneficiaries. ^[24][25]

Current study also explored the reasons for unsuitability of the devices being used. Pain or discomfort when AT is being used, problems in fitting, size and weight, and poor looks of the devices were the most frequent reasons for unsuitability of the products. Similar reasons for dissatisfaction with devices have been reported in other studies also. ^[18] A study from two coastal districts of India reported that uncomfortable glasses and higher cost of the service were the most frequent reasons for dissatisfaction, leading to poor access to the service.^[26] Cosmetic issues are especially important in determining satisfaction with ATs that are worn on exposed areas of the body, like glasses, crutches, etc. In addition, previous studies have also reported that AT received from the public sector has poor acceptability.^[27] This finding was also demonstrated in the current study. A rapid assessment surveys on visual impairment, including blindness revealed that cost of the service and spectacles and lack of availability of service were among those identified reasons for dissatisfaction, resulting in low uptake of the services.^[28]

Overall, the literature on satisfaction with AT is scarce, with the majority of studies focussing on spectacles or other common mobility products. Numerous studies have reported satisfaction with one or few AT, but a comprehensive assessment of all aspects of AT is lacking. A study conducted in Sweden to assess the user satisfaction with manual wheelchairs and rollators using QUEST had shown an overall high satisfaction with both types of devices. ^[18] Numerous rATA surveys have been conducted in other countries and the level of satisfaction with AT ranges from 40.29 in Senegal to 90.61% in Guatemala. ^{[16][29][30][31]} (Table 5) Among the countries of the WHO-SEAR, India has the highest user satisfaction with AT, closely followed by Nepal (84.01%), Maldives (83.57%), and Indonesia (82.2%). In consonance with previous studies, the level of satisfaction was lowest with AT maintenance and repair services. Similarly, the suitability of AT was found to be poor in public environment as compared to home environment. (Table 4)

Table 4

Dissatisfaction with Assistive Technology from Rapid Assessment Technology Assessment in other countries and India
Country/Region	Year	Sample Size	Dissatisfaction with (%)			Unsuitability of AT to (%)
		Sample Size	Products	AT assessment /training	Repair, maintenance	Home environment	Participation in activities	Public environments
Western Guatemala	2021	3050	9.0	4.0	17.0	12.0	10.0	20.0
Bangladesh	2021	11187	11.0	3.0	5.0	17.0	20.0	20.0
Sierra Leone	2019	2076	26.2	24.6	26.5	23.1	20.0	-
Indonesia	2019	2046	8.4	2.6	2.6	6.5	6.8	-
Pakistan	2021	62723	7.9	9.1	13.1	7.4	7.2	-
Current Study	2022	8486	3.9	1.3	2.5	3.2	2.8	3.7

Table 5

Comparison of satisfaction with assistive technology among selected countries of six WHO regions in the world
Country (Year)	Satisfaction with assistive products (%)	Satisfaction with assessment and training (%)	Satisfaction with repair or maintenance (%)
European Region (EUR)
Azerbaijan (2021)	47.68	37.64	19.24
Georgia (2021)	62.24	52.95	27.98
Italy (2021)	83.61	58.31	37.82
Poland (2021)	87.19	88.87	38.14
Sweden (2021)	87.18	81.09	50.8
Tajikistan (2021)	73.85	76.61	74.77
Ukraine (2021)	80.15	52.02	36.7
African Region (AFR)
Burkina Faso (2021)	80.39	55.99	54.03
Kenya (2021)	62.48	61.92	48.66
Liberia (2021)	50.22	30.57	18.06
Malawi (2021)	61.9	56.78	39.93
Senegal (2021)	40.29	34.61	29.02
Togo (2021)	70.63	62.9	49.7
Western Pacific Region (WPR)
China (2021)	82.86	59.28	50.96
Mongolia (2021)	72.17	60.05	51.36
Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR)
Djibouti (2021)	76.09	75.87	74.78
Iran (Islamic Republic)	85.55	79.71	73.62
Iraq (2021)	68.13	53.43	49.64
Jordan (2021)	83.49	74.94	70.83
Pakistan (2019)	85.94	82.79	78.48
Region of the Americas (AMR)
Dominican Rep. (2021)	78.34	84.88	48.64
Guatemala (2021)	90.61	46.95	46.01
South-East Asian Region (SEAR)
Indonesia (2021)	82.2	78.91	78.1
Maldives (2021)	83.57	56.63	57.83
Myanmar (2021)	66.12	63.54	60.55
Nepal (2021)	84.01	54.23	61.87
India (2021)	92.2	88.4	85.2

The findings of the current study could be beneficial for planning, designing, and delivering quality AT services, that can help to increase client satisfaction with AT. Constructive and timely feedback from PwDs in line with a client-centered approach is essential to enhancing their satisfaction with the products they are using. Furthermore, training of rehabilitation staff will improve the satisfaction of both clients and caregivers. Competency of the therapists (assistive technologist) concerning skills, knowledge, understanding of the products in line with the client’s need and participation and user’s learning ability is an important prerequisite for the client to adopt the products as well as satisfaction with AT.

To the best of our knowledge, there is no standardized and universally acceptable AT service delivery model to date. Although the assistive devices production and development is advancing rapidly over the last few years, including information and communication technology (ICT), the AT service sector is not advancing at the same pace. Therefore, there is a need for developing a standardized and universal applicable AT service delivery model that can help to improve independence and the quality of life of the end users.

We introduce a model named Clinico-Social Model of AT service. Originally this model was developed by the current author for inclusive service of people with low vision and blindness.^[32] The principle of the model may be applicable for AT service. The model can help to address clinical and feasible rehabilitation part of AT service in the hospital whereas the AT service-related socio environment part can be taken care of through a community-based networks with multiple organizations. For this, the health facilities need to do a thorough mapping of all relevant organization in their catchment areas. The model emphasizes the importance of maintaining a continuum of care for persons with disabilities from the hospital or clinic to community based related services.

Furthermore, in AT sector, the service delivery can be categorized into first, opportunistic AT service to patients who visit hospital for their health check-up for the first time or to avail follow up or some other purposes like disability certificate. These patients can access AT service in the form of Assessment, Solution, Selection, and Training (ASSET) for the use of AT. The same practices can be followed by local partner organizations. Second, non-opportunistic AT service in which those who visit places other than hospital are provided AT services, e.g. off the shelf AT or in non-health organizations. The end users can visit those centers for their purpose related to disabilities. Each AT can have a user manual or audio-visual training record. If any PwD needs further clinical testing and hospital services, they can be referred to a base hospital. The primary purpose of the proposed AT service model is to draw attention to the need for person-centered disability services in the health facilities and other non-health sectors facilities. Such a model potentially can cater to a wide range of services related to AT by involving multiple organizations along with multiple human resources with less resources from a single facility. Such a model is currently being run in Delhi where nearly 80 organizations including school for the blind are in the network. ^{[32] [33]}

One of the strengths of the current study is that it documents the various dimensions of satisfaction with AT, and also the leading causes of dissatisfaction. Further, the sound methodological design and the use of an internationally validated tool make the results comparable with other countries. The study is the first of its kind in India, which will be instrumental in improving the quality of AT services for PwDs and helps in the creation of an inclusive society.

There are a few limitations in the study that need to be acknowledged. First, language and cultural differences may lead to various interpretations of the same question particularly for satisfaction with AT by participants from different states. Second, study tool comprises of subjective questions, which can be influenced by social desirability biases. Also, being a sub-national study with small sample size, the representativeness of the findings on a national level is suboptimal. Therefore, the country needs a large-scale study with an adequate sample size to have national estimates. Third, the study did not investigate the effect of confounding factors like educational status, duration of device used and severity of disabilities in relation to satisfaction. Further, the study did not estimate user satisfaction segregated by particular products or types of disabilities.

Client satisfaction in the field of AT is one of the integral outcomes in addition to clinical and functional improvement, and quality of life. The provision of user centred assistive products and services is critical for effective independent living and participation in the society for PwDs. Current study reported good satisfaction among PwDs with AT in terms of the product aesthetics and in achieving clients’ needs for executing daily activities. On the other hand, the reasons for dissatisfaction reported were pain and discomfort, poor appearance and fitting, poor quality of service, lack of accessibility to home and public environment. The study will provide important feedback to all stakeholders working with AT as well as users and their caregivers to critically evaluate their products and service delivery.

Contributors

SSS and MS were responsible for all content of the draft. SSS, MS, KJ, and KA were responsible for the study planning and the study design, definition of intellectual content. TJS helped in administrative approval and made suggestions to improve the draft. The authors listed met authorship criteria, reviewed the manuscript before finalization, and had full access to the data. SSS is the principal investigator and guarantor of the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The views and conclusions expressed in the study are a part of the Rapid Assistive Technology Assessment conducted in India and are solely those of the authors, not necessarily representing the opinions or policy and decisions.

Source of Funding

This research is non-commercial, and was conducted in the interest of public health. The authors have not declared any specific grant for this research.

Acknowledgment

We acknowledge the area supervisors, the enumerators, local health workers and administrative staff and their respective institutes for participation in the survey. Pratap Kumar Jena, (School of Public Health, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha), Donald S Christian (Community Medicine, GCS Medical College, Ahmedabad), Edmond Fernandes (Edward & Cynthia Institute of Public Health, CHD Groups, Bangalore), Uday Shankar Singh, (Pramukhswami Medical College & Shree Krishna Hospital, Bhaikaka University, Anand, Gujarat), Ramachandra Kamath, (Community Medicine, Kodagu Institute of Medical Sciences Karnataka).

Data sharing statement

The interview questionnaire used for data collection can be accessed at https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-MHP-HPS-ATM-2021.1. Datasets used in this paper (tables, figures, graphs, and related files) can be requested after communication with the corresponding author.

World Health Organization. World report on disability. Geneva, Switzerland WHO. 2011;
Organziation WH. Global Report on Assistive Technology (GReAT). 2022.
Kisanga SE, Kisanga DH. The role of assistive technology devices in fostering the participation and learning of students with visual impairment in higher education institutions in Tanzania. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol [Internet] 2020 [cited 2022 Feb 17];1–10. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32951491
McNicholl A, Casey H, Desmond D, Gallagher P. The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol [Internet] 2021 [cited 2022 Feb 17];16(2):130–43. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31335220/
Whittaker G, Wood GA, Oggero G, Kett M, Lange K. Meeting AT needs in humanitarian crises: The current state of provision. Assist Technol 2021;33(sup1):3–16.
McNicholl A, Desmond D, Gallagher P. Assistive technologies, educational engagement and psychosocial outcomes among students with disabilities in higher education. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol [Internet] 2020 [cited 2022 Feb 17];1–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33320728
Madara Marasinghe K. Assistive technologies in reducing caregiver burden among informal caregivers of older adults: A systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2016;11(5):353–60.
Demers L, Wessels R, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B, De Witte LP. Key Dimensions of Client Satisfaction with Assistive Technology: A Cross-validation of a Canadian Measure in The Netherlands. Assist technol Res Ser [Internet] 2011 [cited 2023 Jun 19];27:250–8. Available from: https://ebooks.iospress.nl/doi/10.3233/978-1-60750-752-9-250
Larsson Ranada Å, Lidström H. Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process-A systematic review. Assist Technol [Internet] 2019 [cited 2023 Jun 15];31(2):82–97. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28892461/
Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Demers L, Ska B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). http://dx.doi.org/101080/10400435199610132268 [Internet] 2010 [cited 2023 Jun 19];8(1):3–13. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10400435.1996.10132268
Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B, Demers L. Item Analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 2000;12(2):96–105.
Narayanan A, Kumar S, Ramani KK. Spectacle compliance among adolescents: A qualitative study from Southern India. Optom Vis Sci 2017;94(5):582–7.
Narayanan A, Kumar S, Ramani K. Spectacle compliance among adolescents in Southern India: Perspectives of service providers. Indian J Ophthalmol [Internet] 2018 [cited 2023 Jun 19];66(7):945–50. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29941737/
Senjam SS, Manna S, Kishore J, Kumar A, Kumar R, Vashist P, et al. Assistive technology usage, unmet needs and barriers to access: a sub-population-based study in India. Lancet Reg Heal - Southeast Asia [Internet] 2023 [cited 2023 Jun 19];0(0):100213. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/article/S2772368223000732/fulltext
World Health Organization (WHO). rapid Assistive Technology Assessment tool (rATA) [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 22];Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-MHP-HPS-ATM-2021.1
Boggs D, Kester A, Cordon A, Naber J, Rota G, Polack S. Measuring Access to Assistive Technology using the WHO rapid Assistive Technology Assessment (rATA) questionnaire in Guatemala: Results from a Population-based Survey. Disabil CBR Incl Dev [Internet] 2022 [cited 2023 Jan 27];33(1):108–30. Available from: http://dcidj.org//articles/10.47985/dcidj.573/
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) | United Nations [Internet]. [cited 2020 May 19];Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
Samuelsson K, Wressle E. User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: An important element in the rehabilitation process. https://doi.org/101080/09638280701355777 [Internet] 2009 [cited 2023 Jun 15];30(7):551–8. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09638280701355777
Afghanistan A, Mohapatra BK. Users’ Satisfaction with Assistive Devices in Afghanistan. [cited 2023 Jun 19];Available from: www.dcidj.org
Townsend E, Wilcock AA. Occupational justice and client-centred practice: A dialogue in progress. Can J Occup Ther 2004;71(2):75–87.
Arthanat S, Simmons CD, Favreau M. Exploring occupational justice in consumer perspectives on assistive technology. Can J Occup Ther [Internet] 2012 [cited 2023 Jun 19];79(5):309–19. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23539776/
Jindal P, Sharma A. STRUCTURAL SOCIAL CAPITAL OF PARENTS HAVING PERSONS WITH DISABILITY IN CHANDIGARH. Int J Adv Res 2021;9(11):754–61.
Muhammad T, Kumar P, Srivastava S. How socioeconomic status, social capital and functional independence are associated with subjective wellbeing among older Indian adults? A structural equation modeling analysis. BMC Public Health [Internet] 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 15];22(1). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36180950/
Disability division, Empowerment M of SJ and. National Policy For Persons with Disabilities < http://socialjustice.nic.in/policiesacts3.php>. 2017;
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Govt. of India. Pattern of Assistance during 12th Five Year Plan- National Programme for Control of Blindness [Internet]. New Delhi: 2013 [cited 2017 Nov 25]. Available from: http://npcb.nic.in/writereaddata/mainlinkFile/File298.pdf
Bhardwaj A, Vashist P, Singh Senjam S, Gupta V, Gupta N, Manna S. Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Visual Impairment in Two Coastal Districts of Eastern India for Determining Effective Coverage: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Ophthalmic Vis Res [Internet] 2023 [cited 2023 Jun 19];18(2). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37181607/
Gajiwala U, Patel R, Sudhan A, Sil A, Jain E, Jhala L, et al. Compliance of spectacle wear among school children. Indian J Ophthalmol [Internet] 2021 [cited 2023 Jun 19];69(6):1376–80. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34011704/
Marmamula S, Khanna RC, Shekhar K, Rao GN. A population-based cross-sectional study of barriers to uptake of eye care services in South India: the Rapid Assessment of Visual Impairment (RAVI) project. BMJ Open [Internet] 2014 [cited 2023 Jun 19];4(6). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24928590/
Bangladesh Rapid Assistive Technology Assessment (rATA), May 2021 - Bangladesh | ReliefWeb [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 27];Available from: https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/bangladesh-rapid-assistive-technology-assessment-rata-may-2021
Ossul-Vermehren, I., Carew, M.T. and Walker J. Assistive Technology in urban low-income communities in Sierra Leone and Indonesia: Rapid Assistive Technology Assessment (rATA) survey results. [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 27];Available from: https://at2030.org/assistive-technology-in-urban-low-income-communities-in-sierra-leone-and-indonesia/
World Health Organization G. Rapid Assistive Technology Assessment (rATA): Baseline Survey in Pakistan. 2021.
Senjam SS. Developing a disability inclusive model for low vision service. Indian J Ophthalmol 2020;in press.
Senjam SS, Manna S, Vashist P, Gupta V, Grover S, Kumar VA, et al. Improving assistive technology access to students with low vision and blindness in Delhi: A school-based model. Indian J Ophthalmol [Internet] 2023 [cited 2023 Aug 1];71(1):257–62. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36588246/

No competing interests reported.

Satisfaction with Assistive Technology among Users with disabilities: Findings from a Sub-national Study in India

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Data collection

Measurement of satisfaction and suitability

Data management and analysis

Ethics clearance and informed consent

Results

Satisfaction with assistive products

Satisfaction with assessment and training, repair and maintenance

Suitability of assistive technology

Discussion

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1