To Örebro University

Purpose The overall aim of this study was to describe experiences of discrimination due to inaccessibility among people using mobility devices.

Material and methods We conducted a thematic qualitative analysis of 88 complaints about wheeled mobility device use, inaccessibility, and discrimination submitted to the Swedish Equality Ombudsman (DO) during 2015 and 2016.

Results The analysis resulted in three themes: instigating change by invoking laws and regulations and highlighting lack of compliance; demanding to be recognised, understood, and listened to; and struggling for equal access and social participation. Regulations and treaties were invoked as the basis for complaints by people using mobility devices regarding their lack of access to physical environments and impediments to their enjoyment of their full right to participate in and contribute to society. The complaints described feelings of discrimination, the disadvantages and exclusion due to physical inaccessibility, and experiences of being prevented from living one’s life as others do.

Conclusions Complaints filed by people using mobility devices showed that they were denied access to a wide range of contexts, including offices, theatres, restaurants, schools, and public transportation, though they desired to live an active and social life outside their homes. Filing a complaint was a way to take action, highlight present inaccessibility, and express a hope for change.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

• Difficulties experienced by people using wheeled mobility devices can reveal knowledge important for revising existing design and renovation standards for housing and public buildings.

• Documenting facilitators and barriers in different environments is important for giving voice to the needs of wheeled mobility device users and revealing standards that need to be strongly enforced or revised.

• People using wheeled mobility devices should be supported in finding solutions in inaccessible environments, both to fulfil their wishes and to enable their participation in society.

Assistive and welfare technology (AT/WT) has been introduced as a way of facing an ageing population and providing support for older adults in their daily lives. There is much research concerning the assessment and recommendation of AT/WT to individual end-users. However, few studies have explored AT/WT decision-making from a managerial perspective. This study explores what aspects influence decision-making in assistive technology organizations concerning new technology procurements. The study is based on interviews with 24 managers engaged in assistive technology organizations, representing 13 of 21 regions in Sweden. The interview data consisted of the participants’ experiences deciding on AT/WT procurement. A reflexive inductive thematic analysis was used to identify aspects that influenced decision-making. The main findings show that decision-making is in the making, meaning that decision-making is a constant on-going managerial process. Furthermore, the findings show that managers experience uncertainty in the decision-making, sometimes make ad hoc decisions and request an evidence-based, person-centred approach to improve decision-making. The study concludes that supportive, technology, patient, and knowledge aspects influence managers’ decisions.

Purpose:  An ageing population presents a challenge for municipal eldercare in Sweden due to difficulties recruiting staff and there being a strained economy. A strategy involving welfare technology is presented as one such solution. An important group to carry out this strategy involves those who work with welfare technology in municipal eldercare. In this paper we describe their perception of welfare technology, and the challenges and opportunities they perceive in utilizing it. 

Methods: A self-administered online questionnaire was distributed to all Swedish municipalities and answered by 393 respondents. Analyses show that the respondents were representative of the different professions who work with welfare technology within municipal eldercare.

Results: Welfare technology was perceived as being more reliable and safer than humans with regards to supervisions and reminders. The respondents acknowledged factors that slowed down the implementation of welfare technology in municipal eldercare organizations, such as resistance to change, lack of finances, lack of supporting evidence, lack of infrastructure, high staff turnover, difficulties with procurement and uncertainties about responsibility and laws.

Conclusions: We found that the people who work with and make decisions about welfare technology in municipal eldercare organizations were generally very positive about the deployment and use of such technology, but there appear to be problems within municipal eldercare organizations to realize this vision. The lack of structured implementation processes and coherent evaluation models indicates inequality of the access to welfare technology and, as a result, even though Swedish eldercare is publicly funded, the availability of welfare technologies and their usage differ between municipalities.