IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v12y2022i5p141-d936320.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Johan Borg

    (School of Health and Welfare, Dalarna University, 791 31 Falun, Sweden)

  • Natasha Layton

    (Rehabilitation, Ageing and Independent Living (RAIL) Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia)

  • Per-Olof Östergren

    (Social Medicine and Global Health, Department of Clinical Sciences, Malmö, Lund University, 221 00 Lund, Sweden)

  • Stig Larsson

    (Social Medicine and Global Health, Department of Clinical Sciences, Malmö, Lund University, 221 00 Lund, Sweden)

Abstract

Aiming to compare capability across persons with impairments using and not using assistive products and persons without impairments in Bangladesh for 16 different functionings, we contrast two sets of self-reported cross-sectional data from eight districts of Bangladesh: (i) data from persons with hearing impairment not using hearing aids, persons with hearing impairment using hearing aids and persons without impairments (N = 572); and (ii) data from persons with ambulatory impairment not using manual wheelchairs, persons with ambulatory impairment using manual wheelchairs and persons without impairments (N = 598). Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to compare levels of capability across the three groups in each data set. Results showed that, for all functionings in both data sets, the levels of capability were statistically significantly highest for persons without impairments. Compared to persons with hearing impairment not using hearing aids, persons with hearing impairment using hearing aids scored higher in all functionings, with statistical significance at the .05 level for 12 of them. Persons with ambulatory impairment using manual wheelchairs scored higher than persons with ambulatory impairment not using manual wheelchairs for 11 of the functionings, but none of the comparisons between the two groups were significant at the .05 level. Assistive products—hearing aids more than manual wheelchairs—enhance capabilities but do not fully equalize opportunities between people with and without impairments.

Suggested Citation

  • Johan Borg & Natasha Layton & Per-Olof Östergren & 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, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-10, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:5:p:141-:d:936320
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/5/141/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/5/141/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aldo Rosano & Federica Mancini & Alessandro Solipaca, 2009. "Poverty in People with Disabilities: Indicators from the Capability Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 75-82, October.
    2. Surona Visagie & Arne H Eide & Karin Dyrstad & Hasheem Mannan & Leslie Swartz & Marguerite Schneider & Gubela Mji & Alister Munthali & Mustafa Khogali & Gert van Rooy & Karl-Gerhard Hem & Malcolm MacL, 2017. "Factors related to environmental barriers experienced by persons with and without disabilities in diverse African settings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-14, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Natasha Layton & Johan Borg, 2023. "Assistive Technology and the Wellbeing of Societies from a Capabilities Approach," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-3, January.
    2. Natasha Layton & Silvana Contepomi & Maria del Valle Bertoni & Maria Helena Martinez Oliver, 2022. "When the Wheelchair Is Not Enough: What Capabilities Approaches Offer Assistive Technology Practice in Rural Argentina," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-12, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qhayiya Magaqa & Proochista Ariana & Sarah Polack, 2021. "Examining the Availability and Accessibility of Rehabilitation Services in a Rural District of South Africa: A Mixed-Methods Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Nor Fairani Ahmad & Mariani Mansor & Laily Paim, 2016. "Income Poverty and Well-Being among Vulnerable Households: A Study in Malaysia," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(2), pages 195-195, February.
    3. Lucian Bezuidenhout & Anthea Rhoda & David Moulaee Conradsson & Joyce Mothabeng & Conran Joseph, 2023. "The Role of Environmental Factors on Health Conditions, General Health and Quality of Life in Persons with Spinal Cord Injuries in South Africa," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(9), pages 1-12, May.
    4. Flavio Comim, 2021. "A Poset-Generalizability Method for Human Development Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 1179-1198, December.
    5. Gregor Wolbring & Rachel Mackay, 2014. "Analysis of Newspaper Coverage of Food Security through a Disability Studies Lens," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 7(4), pages 1-1, July.
    6. Lauren Graham & Eleanor Ross, 2016. "Disparities in Quality of Life Among South Africans With and Without Disabilities," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 721-739, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:5:p:141-:d:936320. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.