Do Assistive Products Enhance or Equalize Opportunities? A Comparison of Capability across Persons with Impairments Using and Not Using Assistive Products and Persons without Impairments in Bangladesh
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample
2.2. Instrumentation
2.3. Procedure
2.4. Variables
2.5. Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Respondent Characteristics
3.2. Hearing-Related Comparisons
3.3. Ambulation-Related Comparisons
4. Discussion
5. Limitations
Activities and participation need to be replaced or supplemented by a more holistic concept, such as quality of life or wellbeing. Recent advances in approaches that define such alternatives such as Amartya Sen’s capability approach should be considered [28] (p. 338).
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- UN. The United Nations Flagship Report on Disability and Development; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- WHO; UNICEF. Global Report on Assistive Technology; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Tebbutt, E.; Brodmann, R.; Borg, J.; MacLachlan, M.; Khasnabis, C.; Horvath, R. Assistive products and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Glob. Health 2016, 12, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sen, A. Development as Freedom; Anchor Books: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Sen, A. The Idea of Justice; Allan Lane: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Nussbaum, M.; Sen, A. (Eds.) The Quality of Life; Oxford Scholarship Online: Oxford, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Nussbaum, M. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach; Harvard University Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Rosano, A.; Mancini, F.; Solipaca, A. Poverty in People with Disabilities: Indicators from the Capability Approach. Soc. Indic. Res. 2009, 94, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riddle, C.A. Disability and Justice: The Capabilities Approach in Practice; Lexington Books: Plymouth, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Borg, J.; Ostergren, P.-O.; Larsson, S.; Rahman, A.A.; Bari, N.; Khan, A.N. Assistive technology use is associated with reduced capability poverty: A cross-sectional study in Bangladesh. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012, 7, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borg, J.; Larsson, S.; Östergren, P.-O.; Rahman, A.A.; Bari, N.; Khan, A.N. Assistive technology use and human rights enjoyment: A cross-sectional study in Bangladesh. BMC Int Health Human Rights 2012, 12, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borg, J.; Larsson, S.; Östergren, P.-O.; Rahman, A.A.; Bari, N.; Khan, A.N. User involvement in service delivery predicts outcomes of assistive technology use: A cross-sectional study in Bangladesh. BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 12, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borg, J.; Östergren, P.O. Users’ perspectives on the provision of assistive technologies in Bangladesh: Awareness, providers, costs and barriers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2015, 10, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borg, J. Assistive Technology, Human Rights and Poverty in Developing Countries. Perspectives Based on a Study in Bangladesh. Doctoral Thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, February 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Vittinghoff, E.; McCulloch, C.E. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol 2007, 165, 710–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- WHO. International Classification of functionings, Disability and Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switizerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Kruskal, W.H.; Wallis, W.A. Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 1952, 47, 583–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Version 28.0; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- WHO. World Report on Disability; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- MacLachlan, M.; Swartz, L. (Eds.) Disability and International Development: Toward Inclusive Global Health; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Visagie, S.; Eide, A.; Dyrstad, K.; Mannan, H.; Swartz, L.; Schneider, M.; Mji, G.; Munthali, A.; Khogali, M.; van Rooy, G.; et al. Factors related to environmental barriers experienced by persons with and without disabilities in diverse African settings. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0186342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- UN. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, E.M.; Huff, S.; Wescott, H. Assistive technologies are central to the realization of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2022, 1–6, ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pullin, G. Super normal design for extraordinary bodies: A design manifesto. In Manifestos for the Future of Critical Disability Studies; Ellis, K., Garland-Thomson, R., Kent, M., Robertson, R., Eds.; Taylor & Francis Group: Milton Keynes, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Paraschivoiu, I.; Meschtscherov, A.; Winkler, A. Beyond “Assistive”: Four Tensions in the Design of AAL Based on the Capability Approach. In Proceedings of the DIS’20: Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2020, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 6–10 July 2020. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Resolution WHA 71.8. Improving access to assistive technology. In Seventy-First World Health Assembly; Resolutions, Decisions and Annexes (WHA71/2018/REC/1); World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mitra, S.; Shakespeare, T. Remodeling the ICF. Disabil Health J. 2019, 12, 337–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Independent Variable | Data Set on Hearing | Data Set on Ambulation |
---|---|---|
Group | Group 1: Persons with hearing impairment not using hearing aids | Group 1: Persons with ambulatory impairment not using manual wheelchairs |
Group 2: Persons with hearing impairment using hearing aids | Group 2: Persons with ambulatory impairment using manual wheelchairs | |
Group 3: Neighbors | Group 3: Neighbors | |
Dependent variables (ICF category) | Survey question | |
To what extent do you have problem to | ||
Traveling (d470) | use transportation as a passenger to move around? | |
Shopping (d6200) | buy food items and clothes? | |
Cooking (d630) | prepare meals? | |
Housework (d640) | do housework like washing or cleaning? | |
Caring (d660) | take care of others, for example children or elderly? | |
Friendships (d7500) | make friends and maintaining friendships? | |
Authorities (d7400) | interact with persons in authority? | |
Strangers (d730) | interact with strangers? | |
Family (d760) | create and maintain family relationships? | |
Studies (d810-d839) | go to school and study? | |
Work (d845) | get and keep a job? | |
Economy (d870) | handle income and payments? | |
Memberships (d910) | be an active member of clubs or organizations? | |
Recreation (d920) | participate in recreational and leisure activities such as sports, games, arts and crafts, dance, music, etc.? | |
Religion (d930) | participate actively in religious activities? | |
Decisions (d177) | Do you make important decisions about your own life? |
Characteristic | Data Set on Hearing (N = 572) | Data Set on Ambulation (N = 598) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | |
Size n | 150 | 138 | 284 | 149 | 150 | 299 |
Age (years) Mean (SD) | 30.8 ± 11.9 | 26.9 ± 13.7 | 28.9 ± 12.5 | 32.4 ± 12.6 | 32.0 ± 13.3 | 31.9 ± 12.4 |
Sex (Female) n (%) | 66 (44.0) | 51 (37.0) | 114 (40.1) | 55 (36.9) | 39 (26.0) | 90 (30.1) |
Dependent Variable | χ2 a | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Pairwise Comparisons b | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean Rank | Mean Rank | Mean Rank | Gr 3–Gr 2 | Gr 3–Gr 1 | Gr 2–Gr 1 | ||
Traveling (N = 566) | 181.0 *** | 391.0 | 314.5 | 213.4 | 101.1 *** (14.0), M | 177.7 *** (13.5), L | 76.5 *** (15.9), S |
Shopping (N = 571) | 188.4 *** | 399.4 | 321.1 | 208.8 | 112.3 *** (14.7), M | 190.6 *** (14.3), L | 78.3 *** (16.7), S |
Cooking (N = 572) | 56.9 *** | 336.1 | 323.1 | 242.5 | 80.6 *** (14.5), M | 93.7 *** (14.1), M | 13.0 (16.4), - |
Housework (N = 571) | 43.1 *** | 333.4 | 304.5 | 252.2 | 52.4 *** (13.3), S | 81.2 *** (13.0), M | 28.9 (15.1), - |
Caring (N = 509) | 60.4 *** | 304.8 | 273.0 | 221.7 | 51.3 *** (11.7), S | 83.0 *** (11.1), M | 31.8 * (13.3), S |
Friendships (N = 526) | 253.7 *** | 400.8 | 285.4 | 186.6 | 98.8 *** (14.0), M | 214.2 *** (13.6), L | 115.4 *** (16.1), M |
Authorities (N = 396) | 178.0 *** | 296.9 | 235.0 | 138.8 | 96.3 *** (12.8), M | 158.1 *** (12.4), L | 61.9 *** (14.9), S |
Strangers (N = 559) | 291.5 *** | 429.6 | 328.3 | 179.2 | 149.0 *** (15.5), M | 250.4 *** (15.2), L | 101.4 *** (17.7), S |
Family (N = 548) | 258.8 *** | 412.5 | 303.4 | 190.7 | 112.7 *** (14.3), M | 221.9 *** (14.0), L | 109.2 *** (16.4), S |
Studies (N = 183) | 59.9 *** | 129.8 | 113.7 | 71.1 | 42.6 *** (6.9), M | 58.6 *** (9.6), M | 16.1 (10.3), - |
Work (N = 188) | 57.1 *** | 144.3 | 111.8 | 72.5 | 39.3 *** (9.2), M | 71.8 *** (10.1), L | 32.5 ** (11.8), S |
Economy (N = 456) | 163.8 *** | 335.6 | 249.3 | 164.9 | 84.4 *** (14.7), S | 170.7 *** (13.5), L | 86.3 *** (16.6), S |
Memberships (N = 304) | 163.8 *** | 238.7 | 185.2 | 106.9 | 78.4 *** (10.8), M | 131.8 *** (10.8), L | 53.4 *** (13.0), S |
Recreation (N = 421) | 168.6 *** | 325.3 | 233.3 | 156.8 | 76.4 *** (12.7), M | 166.5 *** (13.2), L | 92.1 *** (15.4), M |
Religion (N = 550) | 250.0 *** | 413.1 | 295.5 | 195.4 | 100.1 *** (14.5), M | 217.8 *** (13.9), L | 117.6 *** (16.5), M |
Decisions (N = 569) | 98.3 *** | 374.7 | 316.2 | 222.3 | 93.9 *** (16.4), S | 152.5 *** (16.0), M | 58.5 *** (18.6), S |
Dependent Variable | χ2 a | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Pairwise Comparisons b | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean Rank | Mean Rank | Mean Rank | Gr 3–Gr 2 | Gr 3–Gr 1 | Gr 2–Gr 1 | ||
Traveling (N = 576) | 471.4 *** | 440.1 | 427.2 | 148.4 | 278.8 *** (15.8), L | 281.7 *** (15.6), L | 2.9 (18.3), - |
Shopping (N = 598) | 334.7 *** | 416.7 | 424.9 | 178.2 | 238.5 *** (16.3), L | 246.7 *** (16.2), L | –8.2 (18.8), - |
Cooking (N = 598) | 152.4 *** | 381.3 | 383.3 | 216.7 | 164.7 *** (16.5), M | 166.6 *** (16.4), M | –2.0 (19.0), - |
Housework (N = 598) | 215.0 *** | 397.9 | 395.5 | 202.3 | 193.1 *** (16.2), M | 195.5 *** (16.2), L | 2.4 (18.7), - |
Caring (N = 467) | 266.8 *** | 336.2 | 346.4 | 152.2 | 184.0 *** (14.4), L | 194.2 *** (14.6), L | –10.2 (17.5), - |
Friendships (N = 496) | 173.3 *** | 342.5 | 320.8 | 183.7 | 137.1 *** (13.6), M | 158.8 *** (14.1), L | 21.7 (16.6), - |
Authorities (N = 402) | 145.8 *** | 277.4 | 268.2 | 147.1 | 121.1 *** (13.0), M | 130.4 *** (13.1), L | 9.2 (15.7), - |
Strangers (N = 558) | 170.3 *** | 373.5 | 349.8 | 204.2 | 145.7 *** (14.9), M | 169.3 *** (15.0), M | 23.7 (17.5), - |
Family (N = 534) | 191.7 *** | 372.0 | 334.8 | 192.5 | 142.2 *** (14.3), M | 179.5 *** (14.7), L | 37.2 * (17.1), S |
Studies (N = 151) | 126.8 *** | 121.3 | 114.2 | 45.1 | 69.1 *** (8.5), L | 76.2 *** (7.9), L | 7.1 (9.9), - |
Work (N = 173) | 73.8 *** | 125.0 | 125.6 | 62.2 | 62.8 *** (9.2), L | 63.4 *** (9.4), L | –0.7 (11.5), - |
Economy (N = 459) | 118.8 *** | 299.6 | 300.8 | 175.3 | 124.4 *** (14.5), M | 125.5 *** (14.2), M | –1.1 (17.2), - |
Memberships (N = 281) | 95.6 *** | 193.0 | 179.3 | 101.6 | 77.7 *** (10.4), M | 91.4 *** (11.1), M | 13.7 (12.6), - |
Recreation (N = 364) | 165.9 *** | 257.7 | 252.3 | 123.2 | 129.2 *** (12.5), L | 134.6 *** (13.0), L | 5.4 (15.2), - |
Religion (N = 538) | 311.9 *** | 394.7 | 377.1 | 168.4 | 208.8 *** (15.3), L | 226.3 *** (15.2), L | 17.6 (18.1), - |
Decisions (N = 597) | 96.7 *** | 375.4 | 354.0 | 233.1 | 120.8 *** (16.5), M | 142.3 *** (16.5), M | 21.4 (19.0), - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Borg, J.; Layton, N.; Östergren, P.-O.; Larsson, S. Do Assistive Products Enhance or Equalize Opportunities? A Comparison of Capability across Persons with Impairments Using and Not Using Assistive Products and Persons without Impairments in Bangladesh. Societies 2022, 12, 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12050141
Borg J, Layton N, Östergren P-O, Larsson S. Do Assistive Products Enhance or Equalize Opportunities? A Comparison of Capability across Persons with Impairments Using and Not Using Assistive Products and Persons without Impairments in Bangladesh. Societies. 2022; 12(5):141. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12050141
Chicago/Turabian StyleBorg, Johan, Natasha Layton, Per-Olof Östergren, and Stig Larsson. 2022. "Do Assistive Products Enhance or Equalize Opportunities? A Comparison of Capability across Persons with Impairments Using and Not Using Assistive Products and Persons without Impairments in Bangladesh" Societies 12, no. 5: 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12050141
APA StyleBorg, J., Layton, N., Östergren, P.-O., & Larsson, S. (2022). Do Assistive Products Enhance or Equalize Opportunities? A Comparison of Capability across Persons with Impairments Using and Not Using Assistive Products and Persons without Impairments in Bangladesh. Societies, 12(5), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12050141