Introduction to the special section on an assistive technology selection framework

The use of assistive technology to improve the situation of individuals with disabilities (special needs) should be viewed as a prerogative of these individuals, and international bodies like the World Health Assembly, United Nations, and World Health Organization have stressed this point. The ensuing question is how to translate the statements of these major organizations and other national and international agencies into reality or, more specifically, what is the process through which the appropriate technology is selected for and provided to people who need it. The question has already been targeted in pioneer work by Scherer and colleagues [1–3] and recently by the Global Cooperation on Assistive Technology (GATE) initiative established by the World Health Organization [4,5]. The same question has also been the target of a recent article by Niekirk et al. “Influences on selection of assistive technology for young children in South Africa: perspectives from rehabilitation professionals” [6]. Commentaries on this article by six different experts in the area (i.e., Scherer, Borg, Pearlman, Desideri, Banes, and de Witte) are included in this special section of the Journal. Each commentary analyzes (reflects on) the points raised by the Niekirk and al.’s article on assistive technology selection in a relatively poor and fragmented country like South Africa from a relatively different angle, adding important considerations on the main question and ways of addressing it. Scherer draws a number of parallels between the factors identified by Niekirk et al. and those acknowledged in her own work as critical for determining the selection and provision of assistive technology. She also points out the convergence of the work carried out by Niekirk and al. with the efforts made by the GATE initiative in advancing general understanding and improving work effectiveness in this area. Borg continues the analysis of the selection process and the factors that influence such process. He tries to determine (a) the overlap between what was reported in the Niekirk et al.’s article and what had been previously contemplated within the Scherer’s framework, and (b) the non-overlap (new) area that should eventually be explored in any efforts to update selection procedures and tools. Pearlman analyzes the Niekirk et al.’s article in relation to the themes of provision, personnel, products, and policies. With regard to each theme he ponders about the shortcomings found in the South African reality as well as in other realities and suggests a number of strategies that might help to reduce the impact of those shortcomings or to overcome those shortcomings altogether. Desideri points out that the Niekirk et al.’s article is not only an analysis of and an attempt to understand and eventually improve the South African situation; it is also a prompt to improve services worldwide in line with the GATE initiative. He argues that any improvement may depend on the production of and adherence to good example practices (i.e., practices which are quite weak and limited at present). Banes moves from the difficulties in selecting and providing assistive technology described by Niekerk et al. to discussing how the barriers and issues identified in that article may be considered a by-product of an expert model of service delivery. A possible way to overcome such model and improve the situation could be that of providing relevant knowledge to the end users and their families and include them in decision making. de Witte argues that many children and families who need assistive technology are (a) unknown to the professionals and services responsible for technology selection and provision and (b) unaware of what is available and how it can be reached. On this basis, his critical point is: What is the meaning of working on issues related to those professionals and services when people with disabilities do not reach them?