Ehrlich Nathaniel J, Carlson Dawn, Bailey Nell
Office of Survey Research, Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA.
Assist Technol. 2003 Summer;15(1):28-38. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2003.10131887.
A modified discriminant function analysis was performed to determine the interaction between the source of information for assistive technology used by persons with disabilities. In the sample of 1,412 such persons, 901 were found to use some form of assistive technology in their daily lives. Ten distinct sources of information were specified. Respondents were able to mention up to three sources of information for each example of assistive technology used. A total of 930 sources were mentioned. Overall, the most mentioned information source was a physician or other health care professional, accounting for 53% of all sources mentioned. The only other frequently mentioned sources were family and friends (15%) and vocational rehabilitation counselors (13%). We found that physicians and health care professionals provide information to all groups without significant variance--this source of information is clearly nondiscriminant. Respondents who use family and friends as a source of information tend to be older, poorer, unemployed, more severely impaired, non-White, and, most significantly, render a more negative opinion of the amount and utility of information they have received about assistive technology, as well as the helpfulness of assistive technology in general. Persons obtaining information from vocational rehabilitation counselors tend to be better educated, non-White, unemployed, and have a more positive opinion about assistive technology. The limited size of the national population-based sample (n = 1,412) and very low number of responses indicating a state-based agency as the source of information about assistive technology did not allow state-by-state comparisons; alternative approaches, however, suggest a slight decline in the usage of the primary source (physician or other health care professional) with decreasing population, and a larger increase in the usage of family and friends as a source of information.
进行了一项修正的判别函数分析，以确定残疾人使用辅助技术的信息来源之间的相互作用。在1412名此类人员的样本中，发现901人在日常生活中使用某种形式的辅助技术。指定了10个不同的信息来源。对于所使用的每种辅助技术示例，受访者最多能够提及三个信息来源。总共提及了930个来源。总体而言，提及最多的信息来源是医生或其他医疗保健专业人员，占所有提及来源的53%。唯一其他经常被提及的来源是家人和朋友（15%）以及职业康复顾问（13%）。我们发现医生和医疗保健专业人员向所有群体提供信息，且无显著差异——这个信息来源显然不具有歧视性。将家人和朋友作为信息来源的受访者往往年龄较大、较贫困、失业、残障程度更严重、非白人，而且最重要的是，他们对所收到的有关辅助技术的信息数量和效用以及辅助技术总体的帮助程度给出更负面的评价。从职业康复顾问那里获取信息的人往往受教育程度更高、非白人、失业，并且对辅助技术有更积极的看法。基于全国人口的样本规模有限（n = 1412），且表明以州级机构作为辅助技术信息来源的回复数量极少，因此无法进行州与州之间的比较；然而，其他方法表明，随着人口减少，主要信息来源（医生或其他医疗保健专业人员）的使用略有下降，而将家人和朋友作为信息来源的使用则有更大幅度的增加。
