Advertisement

Technology and the environment: supportive resource or barrier for people with developmental disabilities?

      Our society has witnessed an exponential growth in information and the technologies to identify, access, and utilize this information. At the same time, separate assistive technologies (AT) have been developed to enable people with disabilities to access information and control their environment. Recently, the disability and technology design communities have questioned the concept of separate development; that is, the development of technology for persons with disabilities as distinctively different from design for the rest of society. Instead, they have advocated for universal design—design of products and environments for use by all people. Technologies, such as accessible Internet/World Wide Web interfaces, and age-friendly access-ready community environments have the potential to open additional doors to available information, personal control, and equitable participation for people with developmental disabilities. Such technologies and environments, whether assistive or universally designed, hold great promise for people with developmental disabilities who seek to live and participate in the community across the life span. These technologies, however, also carry a significant cost in relation to the financial resources needed to obtain them, the systems to implement them, and the social investment needed to support and sustain their use over time. Thus, technology has the potential to be a “bane” or a “boon” for people with disabilities and, in turn, for others in their everyday social worlds. As demonstrated by the quotations at the start of this article, assistive technology can make a significant difference in a person's life. Unfortunately, whether that person gets access to needed technology in the first place or to what extent it is supported over time is closely connected to the social environment and the level of support it affords. The quotations also illustrate the key role nurses and other health care professionals play in this process as members of that social environment, including the power they may have in determining AT need relative to life decisions such as community living.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribers receive full online access to your subscription and archive of back issues up to and including 2002.

      Content published before 2002 is available via pay-per-view purchase only.

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Nursing Clinics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Hammel J.
        • Lai J.
        • Heller T.
        The impact of assistive technology and environmental interventions on function and living situation status for people who are aging with developmental disabilities.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2002; 24: 93-105
      1. The Assistive Technology Act: PL 105–394.
        Congressional Report, Washington DC1998
        • Lawton M.P.
        Competence, environmental press and the adaptation of older people.
        in: Powell Lawton M. Windley P.G. Byerts T.O. Aging and the environment. Springer, New York1982
        • Dunn W.
        • Brown C.
        • McGuigan A.
        The ecology of human performance: a framework for considering the effect of context.
        Am J Occup Ther. 1994; 48: 595-607
      2. Hammel J, Heller T, Ying G. Outcomes of assistive technology services and use by adults with developmental disabilities. Proceedings of the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America. Minneapolis, MN; 1998.

        • Light J.C.
        • Binger C.
        Building communicative competence with individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication.
        Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore, MD1998
        • McEwen I.
        Assistive positioning as a control parameter of social-communicative interactions between students with profound multiple disabilities and classroom staff.
        Phys Ther. 1992; 72: 634-647
      3. Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000: PL 106–402.
        Congressional Report, Washington, DC2000
      4. The Rehabilitation Act: PL 99–506.
        Congressional Report, Washington, DC1973 (Amendments 1998)
      5. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: PL 101–336.
        Congressional Report, Washington, DC1990
      6. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: PL 105–17.
        Congressional Report, Washington, DC1998
      7. Olmstead v L.C., 98 SCt 536 (1999).

        • LaPlante M.
        • Hendershot G.
        • Moss A.
        Assistive technology devices and home accessibility features: prevalence, payment, need and trends. Advance data: number 217. National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, Washington, DC1992
        • National Council on Disability
        Federal policy barriers to assistive technology.
        Author, Washington, DC2000
        • Seelman K.
        Blueprint for the millennium: an analysis of regional hearings on assistive technology for people with disabilities.
        US Department of Education, NIDRR, Washington, DC1998
        • Gitlin L.
        Why older people accept or reject assistive technology.
        Generations. 1995; Spring: 41-46
        • Philips B.
        • Zhao H.
        Predictors of assistive technology abandonment.
        Assist Technol. 1993; 5: 36-45
        • Wehmeyer M.
        National survey of the use of assistive technology by adults with mental retardation.
        Ment Retard. 1998; 36: 44-51
        • Parette H.
        • Vanbiervliet A.
        Tentative findings of a study of the technology needs and use patterns of persons with mental retardation.
        J Intellect Disabil Res. 1992; 36: 7-27
        • Connolly B.H.
        General effects of aging on persons with developmental disabilities.
        Top Geriatr Rehabil. 1998; 13: 1-18
        • Benz M.
        • Kennann K.
        Educational experiences, needs, and interests of older adults with mental retardation.
        Educ Gerontol. 1988; 14: 509-523
        • Nochajski S.
        • Tomita M.
        • Mann W.
        The use and satisfaction with assistive devices by older persons with cognitive impairments: a pilot intervention study.
        Top Geriatr Rehabil. 1996; 12: 40-53
        • French S.
        What's so great about independence?.
        in: Swain J. Finkelstein V. French S. Oliver M. Disabling barriers—enabling environments. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA1993
        • Morris J.
        Independent lives: community care and disabled people.
        Macmillan Press, Basingstoke, Great Britain1993
        • Reindal S.
        Independence, dependence, interdependence: some reflections on the subject and personal autonomy.
        Disabil Soc. 1999; 14: 353-367
        • Hammel J.
        Assistive technology and environmental intervention (AT-EI) impact on activity and life roles of aging adults with developmental disabilities: findings and implications for practice.
        J Occup Phys Ther Geriatr. 2000; 18: 37-58
        • Hammel J.
        Assistive technology and practice.
        American Occupational and Therapy Association, Bethesda, MD2000
        • Heller T.
        Supporting adults with intellectual disabilities and their families in planning and advocacy: a literature review.
        Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 2000; 18: 59-74