Providing Alternative Financing for Assistive Technology: Outcomes Over Twenty Months

Journal of Disability Policy Studies

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 109-119

  Finlayson, Marcia ^a   Hammel, Joy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84993698707     PISSN: 10442073     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/10442073030140020901     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Andrich, R., Ferrario, M., & Moi, M. (1998). A model of cost-outcome analysis for assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation, 20(1), 1–24.
2. Assistive Technology Act of 1998, 29 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.
3. Corin, E. (1994). The social and cultural matrix of health and disease. In R. G. Evans, M. L. Barer, & T. R. Marmor (Eds.), Why are some people healthy and others not? The determinants of health of populations (pp. 93–132). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
4. Cowan, D.M., & Turner-Smith, A.R. (1999). The user's perspective on the provision of electronic assistive technology: Equipped for life? The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(1), 2–6.
5. Day, H., & Jutai, J. (1996). Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: The PIADS. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 9, 159–168.
6. Day, H., Jutai, J., Woolrich, W., & Strong, G. (2001). The stability of impact of assistive devices. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23(9), 400–404.
7. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (1996). Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology, 8(1), 3–13.
8. Fuhrer, M.J. (2001). Assistive technology outcomes research: Challenges met and yet unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80, 528–535.
9. Goodman, G., Tiene, D., & Luft, P. (2002). Adoption of assistive technology for computer access among college students with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1/2/3), 80–92.
10. Hammel, J., Lai, J.-S., & Heller, T. (2002). The impact of assistive technology and environmental interventions on function and living situation status with people who are ageing with developmental disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1/2/3), 93–105.
11. Katz, M.H. (1999). Multivariable analysis: A practical guide for clinicians. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. LaPlante, M., Hendershot, G., & Moss, A. (1992). Assistive technology devices and home accessibility features: Prevalence, payment, need and trends. Advance Data, 217. (Available from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control)
13. Louise-Bender Pape, T., Kim, J., & Weiner, B. (2002). The shaping of individual meaning assigned to assistive technology: A review of personal factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1/2/3), 5–20.
14. Mann, W.C., Hurren, D., & Tomita, M. (1993). Comparison of assistive device use and needs of home-based older persons with different impairments. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 980–987.
15. Mann, W.C., Nochajski, S.M., Sprigle, S.H., & Riordan, B.M. (1995). Custom device development and professional training in developmental disabilities. Technology and Disability, 4, 295–329.
16. Mann, W.C., Ottenbacher, K.J., Fraas, L., Tomita, M., & Granger, C.V. (1999). Effectiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintaining independence and reducing home care costs for the frail elderly. Archives of Family Medicine, 8, 210–217.
17. Manton, K.G., Corder, L., & Stallard, E. (1993). Changes in the use of personal assistance and special equipment from 1982 to 1989: Results from the 1982 and 1989 NLTCS. The Gerontologist, 33, 168–176.
18. Mendelsohn, S.B. (1997). Assistive technology: Public policy and financing. Technology and Disability, 6(1/2), 29–48.
19. National Council on Disability. (2000). Federal policy barriers to assistive technology. Washington, DC: Author.
20. Notice, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Inviting Applications for Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 for New Awards for the Alternative Financing Program and a Pre-Application Meeting, 66 Fed. Reg. 114, 32169 (2001).
21. Oldridge, N.B. (1996). Outcomes measurement: Health state preferences and economic evaluation. Assistive Technology, 8, 94–102.
22. Rubin, R., & White-Means, S. (2001). Race, disability and assistive devices: Sociodemographics or discrimination. International Journal of Social Economics, 10/12, 927–941.
23. Russell, J.N., Hendershot, G.E., LeClere, F., Howie, L.J., & Adler, M. (1997). Trends and differential use of assistive technology devices: United States, 1994. Advance Data, 292. (Available from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control)
24. Scherer, M. (1993). Living in the state of stuck: How technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
25. Scherer, M.J. (1996). Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disability and Rehabilitation, 18, 439–448.
26. Seelman, K. (1998). Blueprint for the millennium: An analysis of regional hearings on assistive technology for people with disabilities. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
27. Sevcik, R.A., Romski, M.A., Collier, V., Rayfield, C., Nelson, B., Walton-Bowe, A., et al. (1995). Project FACTT: Meeting the communication needs of children with severe developmental disabilities. Technology and Disability, 4, 233–241.
28. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Alternative financing mechanisms, Title III, Assistive Technology Act of 1998, First Annual Report to Congress. Washington, DC: National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
29. Vanbiervliet, A., & Parette, H.P. (2002). Development and evaluation of the Families, Cultures and Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) multimedia program. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1/2/3), 131–143.
30. Wallace, J., & Knorr, K. (1996). Loan financing programs for assistive technology: Strategies for development, current programs and recommendations for the future. Journal of Technology and Disability, 5(3/4), 255–266.
31. Wallace, J.F., Hayes, M., & Bailey, M.N. (2000). Assistive technology loan financing: Status of program impact and consumer satisfaction. Technology and Disability, 13(1), 17–22.