Next Article in Journal
Listening to Dance: Gendered Voices and the Emotional Experience of Poetic Audio Description for Audiences with Visual Impairments
Previous Article in Journal
Continuity of Care for Persons with Disabilities in South Africa: An Exploratory Analysis of Four Health Policies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Disabilities
Volume 6
Issue 1
10.3390/disabilities6010020
disabilities-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Coping with the COVID-19 Pandemic Using Internet Connected Assistive Devices: Global Online Survey

by
Abbas H. Quamar
1,*,
Diane M. Collins
2 and
Harshal P. Mahajan
3
1
James R. Watson & Judy Rodriguez Watson College of Education, California State University San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA 92407, USA
2
University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77555, USA
3
College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Disabilities 2026, 6(1), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities6010020
Submission received: 7 October 2025 / Revised: 28 January 2026 / Accepted: 31 January 2026 / Published: 14 February 2026
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Utilizing internet-connected assistive devices is essential for completing instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) for people with disabilities. Globally, the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions resulted in drastic lifestyle changes. Methods: A global online survey was conducted to determine whether self-reported satisfaction with completing IADL using internet-connected assistive devices changed from pre-to-during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: A cross-sectional analysis of the electronic instrumental activities of daily living satisfaction assessment survey of 700 participants from 32 countries revealed that during lockdown, people with disabilities had lower satisfaction for IADL domains of transportation, banking, shopping, health, nutrition, and leisure. Satisfaction with IADL domains, transportation, banking, and household and security needs was lower for people with disabilities compared to people without disabilities, both pre- and during lockdown. Additionally, for both people with and without disabilities, satisfaction with all IADL domains decreased during lockdown, except for the domains of household and security needs and memory needs. Pre-COVID-19, the employed individuals with disabilities were more satisfied with their performance of IADLs than those not employed, and no significant differences were found in the satisfaction levels during COVID-19. Conclusions: The pandemic had a measurable impact on IADL satisfaction, especially in people with disabilities.

1. Introduction

In the current mobile technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI) based lifestyles, the use of internet-Connected Assistive Devices (iCAD), like smartphones, tablets, laptops, and apps, is no longer an extravagance but an essential resource for Persons with Disabilities for completing Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL; [1,2]). For people with disabilities, portable and user-friendly mobile technology devices like smartphones and tablets are the most commonly carried Assistive Technology Devices (ATD; [3]). For this study, an iCAD is defined as any information communication technology (ICT)/electronic device or software that assists with promoting, maintaining, and/or enhancing the ability of people with disabilities to live independently in society. Mobile Technology Ubiquity: In 2024, out of a global population of 8.088 billion, approximately 7.21 billion, or 89.14%, were smartphone users who made 12.172 billion mobile connections due to multiple iCAD usage [4]. Additionally, mobile technology services generated $5.2 trillion in economic value globally in 2024, a figure expected to increase to $6 trillion by 2030 [5].
The impact of mobile technology and AI on every sphere of mainstream society has been so pervasive that it has forced a change in the traditional way of daily functioning by providing new methods or abilities for performing day-to-day activities. For example, visiting a bank in person and writing physical checks has been replaced by online 24/7 banking, instant electronic money transfers, and autopay utility bill payments; having to go physically to a grocery store or shopping mall can now be done through online shopping through portals like Amazon, eBay; Writing physical letters, and meeting individuals in-person, is now possible through email, multimedia messaging, video conferencing and break-out room interactions [6,7]. Indeed, the ability of an individual to use ICT devices and software is increasingly essential for autonomous functioning in society for both people with and without disabilities [1,2,6,8,9]. The impact of ICT has led to the development of a “new normal” that promotes an environment of independence, personal preferences, and choice. This new normal has led to a cultural shift in everyday activities like remote working, using ride-sharing apps like Uber and Lyft, and online dating. It has also led to the creation of new activities like “googling”, blogging, tweeting, and social media status updates [1,6]. The impact has been so profound that it has also led to changes in infrastructure, policies, and practices [1,2].
Coronavirus Pandemic: Starting in December 2019, the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) rapidly manifested itself as a lethal and sudden global health emergency in 2020. To contain the spread of the pandemic, most countries imposed lockdowns or restrictions on the movement and behavior of residents of varying intensities. These lockdowns resulted in drastic lifestyle changes, ranging from social distancing and working/schooling from home to limiting travel to essential needs [10]. Zhang [11] argued that “transport-related social exclusion can have profound impacts on people’s ability to access employment, education, healthcare, and social opportunities”, while Park et al. [12] and Grisé et al. [13] emphasized that equitable and inclusive transportation policies are crucial for enhancing well-being and accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Beyond mobility, the pandemic also underscored how systematic inequities extend into other domains, such as financial participation. Financial exclusion is a critical human rights and health equity issue, with evidence showing that people with disabilities are more likely to be “unbanked and excluded from mainstream financial systems compared to those without disabilities” [14]. Barriers include inaccessible banking infrastructure, discriminatory attitudes, and inadequately designed financial products, all of which restrict independence and limit opportunities for participation. Puli et al. [14] argue that financial exclusion undermines social and economic well-being but also highlight opportunities for improvement through user-centered service design, financial education, and accessible ICT innovation.
During the COVID pandemic, the need for timely and accurate information was important for the effective protection of communities. However, there were barriers that people with disabilities faced in obtaining the information they needed. According to Croft and Fraser [15], access to information was limited; many people with disabilities had difficulties accessing public health messaging regarding COVID due to a lack of proper accommodations, such as subtitles and sign language interpreters, accessible website navigation, or properly formatted visual content. The authors also stated that the shift to online education during COVID lockdowns eliminated many educational aspects that people with disabilities benefited from. For example, interpreters and specialized teaching resources also interrupted recreational and practical learning activities [15]. Additionally, interruptions to rehabilitation and health care services left numerous people with disabilities unable to access essential specialized care services [14,15].
Reduced mobility, limited access to healthcare, and disruptions in social support systems left many people with disabilities unable to meet even their basic needs. Tetali et al. [16] found that during the first wave of the pandemic, people with disabilities experienced difficulties in securing livelihoods and maintaining social connections, which further heightened their vulnerability, social connections, and social exclusion.
The COVID pandemic and associated social distancing measures disproportionately disrupted the community participation of people with mobility disabilities. Koon et al. [17] found that access to family and friends was the most negatively affected aspect of daily life, with many participants reporting frustration, sadness, and fear stemming from limited or no contact with loved ones. Other significant challenges included access to groceries, transportation, employment, and personal assistance services, which are vital for maintaining independence. Although some participants adapted by relying on technology and delivery services, most reported a marked decline in social interaction and community engagement. These findings highlight how pandemic responses, while critical public health issues, often overlook the specific everyday functioning needs of people with disabilities, reinforce inequities, and underscore the importance of designing and incorporating inclusive policy frameworks in times of crisis.
IADL, like traveling, banking, and shopping, are higher-level activities that enable people with disabilities to live independently at home and in the community. Technology like iCAD plays a crucial role in enabling people with disabilities, comprising more than 15.6% of the global population, to complete IADL independently [18,19]. The COVID lockdown restrictions significantly impacted the ability of people with disabilities to complete IADL independently. Identification of specific IADL domain breakdown for people with disabilities as compared to people without disabilities during the lockdown would be crucial from an inclusion, equity, social justice, and public health point of view. Analyzing this IADL breakdown in the context of correlations with demographic parameters is pivotal. Currently, a dearth of research exists on specific IADL domains that COVID has negatively impacted. The available research predominantly focuses on how the pandemic disproportionately and negatively impacts people with disabilities; increases risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID; creates problems with support services and reduces access to health care; and resulting emotional/psychological sequelae of the lockdown [20,21,22]. As a result, we conducted a global online survey called the COronavirus Pandemic INternet-connected devices effectiveness Gauging (COPING) Study.
The first objective was to determine whether satisfaction with performing IADL for people with disabilities using iCAD changed from pre-COVID to during COVID. We expected satisfaction levels to be lower during COVID compared to pre-COVID. The second objective was to compare satisfaction with performing IADL between people with and without disabilities during the pandemic lockdown. We expected the satisfaction levels during pandemic lockdowns of people with disabilities to be lower compared to that of people without disabilities. The third objective was to establish possible correlations between IADL satisfaction for people with disabilities and demographic parameters: age, gender, ethnicity, education, employment status, disability, confidence level with iCAD, and coping strategies.

2. Methods

The COPING study was a cross-sectional, online, global study that used snowball sampling. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and the University of Texas Medical Branch. The data of 700 participants from 32 countries were analyzed for this study.

2.1. Participants

The target population for this study was people with and without disabilities who were coping with COVID lockdown restrictions using internet-connected technology. Participants were recruited through solicitation emails and digital flyers distributed globally to: disability advocacy and peer support groups, non-governmental organizations, higher education institutions, public and private limited companies, and social media sites for people with disabilities. Anyone could participate in the study who met the following inclusion criteria: 18 years of age or older and able to complete an online survey independently in English at the 5th to 7th grade reading level or over the phone with a study investigator. The study did not have any exclusion criteria to facilitate a widely representative sample.

2.2. Procedures

After providing web-based informed consent, participants were required to complete one 15–20-min online survey using the encrypted, password-protected Qualtrics® Research Platform. Study investigators had access to Qualtrics, an online research platform that enabled the collection and analysis of qualitative and quantitative data [23]. For this study, Qualtrics was programmed to delete personal identifiers from the survey data. Part one of the study survey consisted of an optional Demographics questionnaire used to collect the following information: age, gender, ethnicity, disability/diagnosis, country of residence, level of education, employment status, confidence level in using internet-connected technology, and coping strategies used to deal with lockdowns. Part two of the study survey consisted of answering the Electronic Instrumental activities of daily living Satisfaction Assessment (EISA) questionnaire. The EISA instrument [24], to the best of our knowledge, is the first-ever self-report tool specifically designed and validated for assessing satisfaction with performing IADL by people with disabilities using iCAD. The EISA outcome measure assesses satisfaction with the following 10 IADL domains: (1) transportation; (2) finances; (3) shopping; (4) health and wellness; (5) nutrition; (6) communication; (7) household/security management; (8) memory/planning and organization; (9) leisure; and (10) education/employment [25]. Although memory/planning and organization are not generally regarded as a conventional IADL domain, they were included in the EISA scale, as they are vital for completing IADL with iCAD [24,25,26,27]. For a full version of the EISA, please refer to Quamar et al. (2023) [24]. EISA version 1.0 has demonstrated good test–retest reliability (Spearman’s Rho = 0.81) and high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.88).
The first administration of EISA retrospectively assessed satisfaction with performing IADL for people with and without disabilities using internet-connected technology prior to the COVID lockdown. The second administration of EISA assessed satisfaction with performing IADL for people with and without disabilities using internet-connected technology during the COVID lockdown—only participants who completed the EISA first and second administrations fully were retained for this study.

2.3. Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 24.0 software [28]. The data were screened for partial and missing values, and the incomplete records were removed. We performed a repeated measures mixed model analysis and post-hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis with pre-/during COVID as the repeated factors for comparing satisfaction with completing IADLs with iCADs for the individuals’ EISA domains. In order to limit the variability from significant differences in the demographic variables between people with and without disabilities in the sample, the groups were matched on age and gender. Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank analyses and Kruskal-Wallis tests with a Bonferroni correction were used to analyze differences in satisfaction scores to address other research objectives.

3. Results

Data were collected from 909 participants, of whom 700 participants completed both Times 1 and 2 EISA administrations, and 164 participants reported having disabilities (See Table 1). The demographic data indicated that the COPING study sample consisted of people with disabilities with an average age of 49.9 + 16.3 years, ranging from 18 to 93 years, and people without disabilities with an average age of 46.2 + 15.7 years, ranging from 20 to 86 years. The study sample for people with disabilities was composed of n = 109 females (66.5%), and the study sample for people without disabilities was composed of n = 327 females (61.0%).
The first objective of the COPING study was to determine whether satisfaction with performing IADL for people with disabilities using iCAD changed from pre-COVID to during COVID. Table 2 demonstrates that during lockdown, people with disabilities had lower satisfaction for the following IADL domains: transportation, banking, shopping, health, nutrition, and leisure. A similar trend was seen for individuals without disabilities.
The second objective of the COPING study was to compare the satisfaction with performing IADL between people with and without disabilities during the COVID lockdown. People with and without disabilities were matched on age and gender, resulting in 155 pairs (n = 310). Results displayed in Table 3 demonstrate that satisfaction with IADL domains of transportation, banking, and household and security needs were lower for people with disabilities compared to people without disabilities, both during lockdown and pre-lockdown.
Additionally, for both people with and without disabilities, satisfaction with all IADL domains was higher pre-lockdown as compared to during lockdown, except for the domains of household and security needs and memory needs.
The third objective of the COPING study was to establish possible correlations between IADL satisfaction for people with disabilities and demographic parameters: age, gender, ethnicity, education, employment status, disability, confidence level with iCAD, and coping strategies. Confidence in using iCAD was significantly correlated with pre-COVID IADL satisfaction scores (Spearman’s rho = 0.247, p = 0.002) but not significantly correlated with satisfaction during COVID. For the highest level of education, no significant differences were found in satisfaction scores between the pre-COVID period and the COVID period.
From the age- and gender-matched dataset, which totaled 310 (or 155 in each group), 220 people were employed during the pandemic, and 36 were not employed. Twenty-one people experienced a change in employment status, transitioning from employed to non-employed or retired. For people without disabilities, 130 were employed, and 6 were not employed. EISA scores and Confidence levels were not significantly different for people without disabilities who were employed and not employed.
For people with disabilities, 90 were employed, and 30 were not employed. EISA scores pre-COVID were significantly different between employed and unemployed. People with disabilities who were employed had higher satisfaction scores than those without disabilities. A similar trend was seen in those who had a change in employment status and those who did not have a change in status. EISA during COVID was not significantly different for people with disabilities.

4. Discussion

In the current Smart and AI technology enabled lifestyles, using iCAD has become essential for people with disabilities for performing IADL. The COVID lockdown movement restrictions made it incumbent for people with disabilities to rely on iCAD for performing IADL. The COPING study, to the best of our knowledge, was the first ever global online survey assessing the change in satisfaction with performing IADL for people with disabilities using iCAD, from pre-lockdown to during the COVID-19 lockdown. This analysis is particularly poignant from a public health perspective because identifying specific IADL domain breakdowns during a pandemic would help inform the development of public health policy guidelines. These guidelines would help ensure adequate support services and preventative measures for people with disabilities to live safely and independently during a national disaster or pandemic scenario. This research with the EISA instrument identified six IADL domains, transportation, banking, shopping, health, nutrition, and leisure, that were negatively impacted for people with disabilities by the pandemic lockdown. The lowered satisfaction along these domains could have been the result of restrictions during the lockdown on mobility, as well as a possible lack of paid and unpaid care to reduce dependency of people with disabilities.
It is intriguing that both pre- and during COVID lockdown, people with disabilities were less satisfied compared to people without disabilities for the IADL domains of transportation, banking, and household and security needs. Transportation can become a major barrier for people with disabilities in everyday functioning. The COVID lockdown possibly reduced the transportation options for people with disabilities in securing essential services and resources. Also, managing financial needs or banking is crucial for all, and more so for people with disabilities. The independence and satisfaction people with disabilities had with managing financial needs during the COVID lockdown could have been impacted by a range of factors, including: the possible lack of paid or unpaid caregivers, lack of on-site technical support, and financial stress from having to manage uncertain personal needs on a limited income.
Another significant aspect of the COVID lockdown was the increased threat of infection from service providers, increased isolation, and a feeling of compromised personal safety and security. These factors could have impeded the ability of people with disabilities to take care of household and security needs during the COVID lockdown.
Notably, a significant difference was found in employment status between participants with disabilities before and during the COVID period. Pre-COVID, more people with disabilities were employed, at school, as homemakers, or volunteers than during COVID. In the EISA domain of work/school/volunteer activities, satisfaction with completing those tasks using iCAD increased during COVID compared to pre-COVID. However, this increase in satisfaction was not statistically significant. People with disabilities who were employed pre-COVID were more satisfied with their IADL performance compared to people with disabilities who were not employed. However, during the COVID lockdowns, there was no significant difference in satisfaction with performing IADL between people with disabilities who were employed versus those who were not employed. This could have been a result of factors like: reduced employment opportunities for people with disabilities during lockdowns, lack of the required level of paid and unpaid care, and increased stress of managing limited finances during the lockdowns.
Whereas the satisfaction levels with most EISA domains decreased from pre to during COVID, the levels did not change for either population for the household and security needs, and memory and organization domains. This could have been a result of people with and without disabilities continuing to be able to use their internet-connected devices to set up reminders, help with keeping important appointments, make to-do lists, etc., and perhaps COVID did not significantly impact the person’s ability to adequately manage their household activities and perceive a threat to their physical safety.

4.1. Limitations

Globally, the pandemic lockdowns were not enforced uniformly, and even in countries where a lockdown was imposed, the restrictions on movement/socialization were not uniform. This could have affected participants’ satisfaction scores on the EISA instrument as well as the compensation strategies participants were using to cope with the pandemic. This study was limited to participants who could communicate in English, and this could have prevented collecting data from participants who did not use English for communication. Another limitation of the sample for this study was that since this survey was circulated over emails, mailing lists, and online forums, the survey could have missed potential participants who did not subscribe to those lists and forums. The other possible confounding factors to this research could include participants responding to online surveys are typically more experienced and confident users of technologies, and perhaps from a higher socioeconomic status, which could affect their satisfaction ratings compared to less experienced users of technologies. The survey was distributed through disability rights organizations, personal contacts, and snowball sampling, which could have introduced selection biases in the sample, compromising the representativeness of the sample. Digital literacy and device availability could be another potential confounder, which could be significantly different across high and low-resource environments, and this could have impacted participation in the survey and satisfaction ratings of some participants. The number of people with disabilities (n = 164) was relatively smaller compared to the number of people without disabilities (n = 536). Even though collecting survey responses from 700 participants from 32 countries during the COVID lockdowns is a significant number, there would be limitations to the representativeness of the sample and the generalizability of the findings. Because of the uneven and smaller distribution of people with disabilities across these different countries, it was not feasible to compare data across countries. Future studies may deploy strategies for recruiting participants specifically from countries of interest.

4.2. Implications for Research and Practice

The COPING study data provides a global assessment of the efficacy of people with and without disabilities using internet-connected technology to live independently during a pandemic. It has also provided pilot data about which IADLs are relatively more dependent on caregiver/peer support. Further analysis of the study data would generate valuable information for developing public health policies to help ensure adequate support services and preventative measures for people with disabilities to live safely and independently during a national disaster or pandemic scenario.
Equity in access to health care during pandemics and national emergencies is pivotal to preventing discrimination. Unfortunately, a digital divide disproportionately marginalized people with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic with respect to digital technology availability, accessibility, and inclusion [29]. Additionally, during the COVID-19 pandemic, people with disabilities were subject to increased risks of infection and mortality compared to people without disabilities. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities binds its members to eliminate discrimination and ensure equality and inclusion for people with disabilities [30]. In order to address these inequities, governmental support, digital education, and the incorporation of universal design principles are required to develop public policy that provides equal opportunity and inclusion during pandemics. These policies also need to engender subtle nuances regarding the inclusion of key factors like the environmental, personal, social, and contextual factors in the everyday functioning and community participation of people with disabilities.
This first-of-its-kind, timely, and important global study has helped identify specific IADL domains that are negatively affected for people with disabilities during pandemics and emergency situations. Identification of such IADL domains is pivotal for designing governmental public health policies that ensure equal opportunity, equity, inclusiveness, and independence for people with disabilities. It is equally important for governments to use the results of pilot global studies like the COPING study to simulate and test policy implementation prior to the occurrence of a possible future global emergency or pandemic. Incorporating such universal design disaster preparedness policies will not only help reduce the risk of infection and mortality for people with disabilities but also enable high-quality disaster preparedness services for all individuals, regardless of factors like disability, level of socio-economic development, and digital literacy.

5. Conclusions

The timely and important COPING study helped identify IADL domains that were negatively impacted by the COVID lockdown restrictions globally. During the pandemic lockdown, people with disabilities had lower satisfaction with the following IADL domains: transportation, banking, shopping, health, nutrition, and leisure. Satisfaction with IADL domains: transportation, banking, and household and security needs, was lower for people with disabilities compared to people without disabilities, both during lockdown and pre-lockdown. Additionally, for both people with and without disabilities, satisfaction with all IADL domains was higher pre-lockdown as compared to during lockdown, except for the domains of household and security needs and memory needs. Pre-lockdown, people with disabilities who were employed were more satisfied with their IADL performance compared to people who were not employed. The results of this study provide important pilot data to conduct further research for improving the everyday functioning of both people with and without disabilities during pandemics and global health emergencies. The results of this study will also help develop public policy and guidelines for improving the disaster preparedness of nations, and strategies for improving the provision of essential services for people with disabilities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.H.Q. and D.M.C.; methodology, A.H.Q. and D.M.C.; formal analysis, H.P.M., A.H.Q. and D.M.C.; resources, A.H.Q.; data curation, H.P.M. and D.M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.H.Q.; writing—review and editing, A.H.Q., H.P.M. and D.M.C.; visualization, H.P.M. and D.M.C.; supervision, A.H.Q.; project administration, A.H.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of University of Arkansas at Little Rock (protocol: #20-049, date of approval: 6 May 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The authors will make the data available to researchers upon request. The authors have chosen not to share the data publicly right now since the study participants provided consent only for sharing data in an aggregate format. Furthermore, the authors have reasons to believe that sharing the raw data publicly may compromise the personal identifiers of individuals with disabilities. Based on the IRB protocol, we are required to protect the integrity of the data for a minimum period of 5 years beyond completion of the study. The main outcome measure for the study Electronic Instrumental activities of daily living Satisfaction Assessment, is already published in [24].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Disability Language/Terminology Positionality Statement

In this paper, we primarily use person-first language (e.g., “people with disabilities”), consistent with the World Health Organization’s International Classification of functioning, disability, and health, which is globally adopted for disseminating international research and policy. We recognize that disability terminology and language preferences vary across cultures, languages, and disability communities, and that some participants may prefer identity-first or locally specific terms. Our terminology choices are intended to support cross-cultural inclusion and clarity and do not imply a single or universal framing of disability.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
iCADinternet-Connected Assistive Devices
IADLInstrumental Activities of Daily Living
COVID-19Coronavirus 19 Pandemic
ICTInformation Communication Technology
EISAElectronic Instrumental activities of daily living Satisfaction Assessment
COPINGCoronavirus Pandemic Internet-connected devices effectiveness Gauging

References

  1. Brandt, Å.; Jensen, M.P.; Søberg, M.S.; Andersen, S.D.; Sund, T. Information and communication technology-based assistive technology to compensate for impaired cognition in everyday life: A systematic review. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2020, 15, 810–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Fessler, E.B.; Brown, R.T.; Miller, R.K. Rebooting instrumental activities of daily living for the 21st century. Ann. Intern. Med. 2022, 175, 278–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kane, S.K.; Jayant, C.; Wobbrock, J.O.; Ladner, R.E. Freedom to roam: A study of mobile device adoption and accessibility for people with visual and motor disabilities. In Proceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 25–28 October 2009. [Google Scholar]
  4. Turner, A. How Many Smartphones Are in the World? BankMyCell. 2023. Available online: https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/how-many-phones-are-in-the-world (accessed on 30 January 2026).
  5. GSMA. The Mobile Economy. 2024. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/solutions-and-impact/connectivity-for-good/mobile-economy/ (accessed on 30 January 2026).
  6. Hibler, V.; Martinson, E.; Rice, E.; Tucker, J.; Fortuna, J.; Cantwell-Jurkovic, L. How occupational therapists are incorporating information and communication technology into intervention with older adults: A scoping review. Assist. Technol. 2025, 37, 408–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Melrose, R.J.; Brommelhoff, J.A.; Narvaez, T.; Natta, L.; Riskin-Jones, H.H.; Sakhai, S.; Wong, L.; Curtis, S.; Horning, S.M. The use of Information and Communication technology when completing instrumental activities of daily living. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 63, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jamwal, R.; Jarman, H.K.; Roseingrave, E.; Douglas, J.; Winkler, D. Smart home and communication technology for people with disability: A scoping review. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2022, 17, 624–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Muñoz-Neira, C.; López, O.L.; Riveros, R.; Núñez-Huasaf, J.; Flores, P.; Slachevsky, A. The technology—Activities of daily living questionnaire: A version with a technology-related subscale. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 2012, 33, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Di Renzo, L.; Gualtieri, P.; Pivari, F.; Soldati, L.; Attinà, A.; Cinelli, G.; Leggeri, C.; Caparello, G.; Barrea, L.; Scerbo, F.; et al. Eating habits and lifestyle changes during COVID-19 lockdown: An Italian survey. J. Transl. Med. 2020, 18, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Zhang, Y.; Farber, S.; Young, M.; Tiznado-Aitken, I.; Ross, T. Travel behaviour differences among people with disabilities: A cluster analysis of accessible taxi users before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Transp. Health 2024, 35, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Park, K.; Esfahani, H.N.; Novack, V.L.; Sheen, J.; Hadayeghi, H.; Song, Z.; Christensen, K. Impacts of disability on daily travel behaviour: A systematic review. Transp. Rev. 2022, 43, 178–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Grisé, E.; Boisjoly, G.; Maguire, M.; El-Geneidy, A. Elevating access: Comparing accessibility to jobs by public transport for individuals with and without a physical disability. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 125, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Puli, L.; Layton, N.; Bell, D.; Shahriar, A.Z. Financial inclusion for people with disability: A scoping review. Glob. Health Action 2024, 17, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Croft, S.; Fraser, S. A scoping review of barriers and facilitators affecting the lives of people with disabilities during COVID-19. Front. Rehabil. Sci. 2022, 2, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tetali, S.; Kamalakannan, S.; Sadanand, S.; Lewis, M.G.; Varughese, S.; Hans, A.; Murthy, G.V.S. Evaluation of the impact of the first wave of COVID-19 and associated lockdown restrictions on persons with disabilities in 14 states of India. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Koon, L.M.; Greiman, L.; Schulz, J.A.; Goddard, K.S.; Nzuki, I.M.; Hall, J.P. Examining the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on community engagement for people with mobility disabilities. Disabil. Health J. 2022, 15, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. American Occupational Therapy Association. Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain & process. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2020, 74, 1–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. World Bank. Disability Inclusion. 2020. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/disability (accessed on 30 January 2026).
  20. Jesus, T.S.; Kamalakannan, S.; Bhattacharjya, S.; Bogdanova, Y.; Arango-Lasprilla, J.C.; Bentley, J.; Gibson, B.E.; Papadimitriou, C. Refugee Empowerment Task Force, International Networking Group of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. People with Disabilities and Other Forms of Vulnerability to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Study Protocol for a Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis. Arch. Rehabil. Res. Clin. Transl. 2020, 2, 100079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lebrasseur, A.; Fortin-Bédard, N.; Lettre, J.; Bussières, E.L.; Best, K.; Boucher, N.; Hotton, M.; Beaulieu-Bonneau, S.; Mercier, C.; Lamontagne, M.E.; et al. Impact of COVID-19 on people with physical disabilities: A rapid review. Disabil. Health J. 2021, 14, 101014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Turk, M.A.; McDermott, S. The COVID-19 pandemic and people with disability. Disabil. Health J. 2020, 13, 100944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Qualtrics, X.M. Available online: https://www.qualtrics.com/about (accessed on 30 January 2026).
  24. Quamar, A.H.; Schmeler, M.R.; McCue, M.; Cooper, R.A.; Goldberg, M.R.; DiGiovine, C.; Collins, D.M.; Schein, R.M. Test-retest reliability of the Electronic Instrumental activities of daily living Satisfaction Assessment: A cohort study. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2023, 77, 7706205140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Quamar, A.H.; Schmeler, M.; Collins, D.M.; Schein, R. Development and content validation of the Electronic Instrumental activities of daily living Satisfaction Assessment (EISA) Outcome Tool. Assist. Technol. 2024, 36, 360–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Quamar, A.H.; Mahajan, H.P.; Garcia, C.; Collins, D.M. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on IADL functioning for people with disabilities using internet-connected assistive devices: Global online survey. In Proceedings of the Rehabilitation Engineering Society of North American (RESNA) Annual Conference, Online, 7–9 July 2021. [Google Scholar]
  27. Quamar, A.H.; Schmeler, M.R.; Collins, D.M.; Schein, R.M. Exploratory review: Self-report IADL assessments in the age of internet connected assistive devices. OTJR Occup. Particip. Health 2021, 41, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2016. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics (accessed on 30 January 2026).
  29. Chadwick, D.; Ågren, K.A.; Caton, S.; Chiner, E.; Danker, J.; Gómez-Puerta, M.; Heitplatz, V.; Johansson, S.; Normand, C.L.; Murphy, E.; et al. Digital inclusion and participation of people with intellectual disabilities during COVID-19: A rapid review and international bricolage. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2022, 19, 242–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shikako, K.; Lencucha, R.; Hunt, M.; Jodoin, S.; Elsabbagh, M.; Hudon, A.; Cogburn, D.; Chandra, A.; Gignac-Eddy, A.; Ananthamoorthy, N.; et al. How Did Governments Address the Needs of People with Disabilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic? An Analysis of 14 Countries’ Policies Based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 2023, 12, 7111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. COPING Study Participant Demographics.
Table 1. COPING Study Participant Demographics.
Persons with Disabilities (n = 164)Persons without Disabilities (n = 536)Significance
VariableMean (SD)RangeMean (SD)Range
Age49.9 (+16.3)18–93 years46.2 (+15.7)20–86 years0.055
Frequency%Frequency%
Gender: Female10966.532761.0%0.016 *
Ethnicity
-Black/African American116.7%213.9%0.000 **
-Amer. Indian/Alaska Natv.10.6%00
-Asian American137.9%19135.6%
-White/Caucasian12274.4%26549.4%
-Hispanic/Latino95.5%173.2%
-Natv. Hawaiian or Pac. Islander0020.4%
-Other84.9%407.4%
Disability/Impairment
-Sensory4927.4%
-Neurological2814.9%
-Musculoskeletal2212.3%
-Mental Health Issue2312.9%
-Multiple Disabilities4826.8%
-Other95.0%
Key: * Correlation is significant at the p < 0.05 level; ** Correlation is significant at the p < 0.005 level with Bonferroni Correction.
Table 2. Satisfaction with iCAD Use for IADLs pre- to during COVID among the 164 Persons with Disabilities (Objective 1).
Table 2. Satisfaction with iCAD Use for IADLs pre- to during COVID among the 164 Persons with Disabilities (Objective 1).
Satisfaction with iCAD Use
for the Following IADLs: 		Pre COVID
(Time 1)		During COVID
(Time 2)		Significance
Transportation *5.445.150.001 *
Banking *5.635.460.002 *
Shopping *5.394.990.000 *
Health and Wellness *5.214.870.000 *
Nutrition *5.375.090.000 *
Communication5.735.610.007
Household and Security Needs5.415.380.453
Memory5.525.380.045
Leisure *5.24.870.000 *
Work/School/Volunteer5.094.870.025
Key: iCAD = internet-Connected Assistive Devices, IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; * Correlation is significant at the p < 0.005 level with Bonferroni Correction.
Table 3. Satisfaction of iCAD use for IADLs between People with Disabilities (n = 155) and People without Disabilities (n = 155), both pre- and during lockdown. (Pairs matched on age and gender were compared).
Table 3. Satisfaction of iCAD use for IADLs between People with Disabilities (n = 155) and People without Disabilities (n = 155), both pre- and during lockdown. (Pairs matched on age and gender were compared).
Satisfaction with iCAD Use
for the Following IADLs: 		People without DisabilitiesPeople with DisabilitiesSignificance
Transportation *5.7745.332<0.001 *
Banking *5.8265.574<0.001 *
Shopping5.4195.2190.051
Health5.1615.0770.467
Nutrition5.4355.2810.15
Communication5.8455.7130.049
Household and Security Needs *5.6975.410.001 *
Memory5.75.490.011
Leisure4.8975.0710.208
Work/School/Volunteer5.2555.0520.09
Key: * Correlation is significant at the p < 0.005 level with Bonferroni Correction.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Quamar, A.H.; Collins, D.M.; Mahajan, H.P. Coping with the COVID-19 Pandemic Using Internet Connected Assistive Devices: Global Online Survey. Disabilities 2026, 6, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities6010020

AMA Style

Quamar AH, Collins DM, Mahajan HP. Coping with the COVID-19 Pandemic Using Internet Connected Assistive Devices: Global Online Survey. Disabilities. 2026; 6(1):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities6010020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Quamar, Abbas H., Diane M. Collins, and Harshal P. Mahajan. 2026. "Coping with the COVID-19 Pandemic Using Internet Connected Assistive Devices: Global Online Survey" Disabilities 6, no. 1: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities6010020

APA Style

Quamar, A. H., Collins, D. M., & Mahajan, H. P. (2026). Coping with the COVID-19 Pandemic Using Internet Connected Assistive Devices: Global Online Survey. Disabilities, 6(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities6010020

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop