RESUMO
This paper analyzes the technology-related outputs from The National Institute of Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR). We seek to answer the questions: What are the types and frequency of assistive technology (AT) technology transfer (ATTT) outputs from NIDILRR grants? How does NIDILRR's ATTT generation compare to other granting organizations? What types of ATTT outputs occur, how, and what is the relative productivity of the most frequently funded universities and small businesses performing with funding by NIDILRR grants? An online search was conducted for indications of ATTT from grants funded from 1983-2021 through publicly available databases, the National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC), and the internet. This data was then categorized across relevant output types and analyzed. NIDILRR funded 662 organizations and 951 different investigators from 1983 to 2021. The NIDILRR-funded portfolio includes 6,996 papers, 438 informational websites, 163 patents, 120 software products, and 29 hardware products. Compared to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NIDILRR produced slightly more products per dollar. Our results highlight the substantial portfolio of technology-related outputs generated with NIDILRR funding and demonstrate how productivity measures can be calculated to guide future funding strategies.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Assistive Technologies encompass a wide array of products, services, healthcare standards, and the systems that support them. Product/market fit is necessary for a technology to be transferred successfully. Current tools lack variables that are key to technology transfer, and current trainings do not have a validated tool to assess the effectiveness of a training, increasing innovators' readiness for technology transfer. The goal was to develop a tool to evaluate the readiness of a technology by incorporating other models and focusing beyond just commercialization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The development involved five stages: 1. Review of current tools used in technology transfer in academic, government, and industry settings; 2. Development of the draft version of the tool with internal review; 3. Alpha version review and refinement, 4. Content validation of the tool's beta version; 5. Assessment of the readiness tool for reliability and preparedness for wide-use dissemination. RESULTS: The tool was revised and validated to 6 subscales and 25 items. The assistive technology subscale was removed from the final version to eliminate repetitive questions and taking into consideration that the tool could be used across technologies. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a flexible assessment tool that looked beyond just commercial success and considered the problem being solved, implications on or input from stakeholders, and sustainability of a technology. The resulting product, the Technology Translation Readiness Assessment Tool (TTRAT)TM, has the potential to be used to evaluate a broad range of technologies and assess the success of training programs.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILIATIONQuality of life can be substantially impacted when an assistive technology does not meet the needs of an end-user. Thus, effective Assistive Technology Tech Transfer (ATTT) is needed.The use of the TTRAT may help to inform NIDILRR and other funding agencies that invest in rehabilitation technology development on the overall readiness of a technology, but also the impact of the funding on technology readiness.The TTRAT may help to educate novice rehabilitation technology innovators on appropriate considerations for not only technology readiness, but also general translation best practices like assembling a diverse team with appropriate skillsets, understanding of the market and its size, and sustainability strategies.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The objectives of this mixed-methods study were to gather survey and interview data about the barriers and facilitators from grantees funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) and to extract themes that could inform program changes that would increase technology translation (TT) success in assistive technology (AT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a TT Barriers and Facilitators survey consisting of Likert scale and multiple-choice questions about barriers and facilitators to TT. With survey respondents who were willing, we conducting a semi-structured interview and asked pointed questions to expand upon survey response rankings and perceived barriers and facilitators. The questions were framed to explore the grantee's personal experience with ATTT and what helped and hindered their individualised processes. RESULTS: Across survey and interview respondents, the three most common themes when exploring the barriers and facilitators of TT were funding, incentives, and collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that there is a need for increased collaboration and access to additional resources such as funding for pilot grants, support to assess technology marketability, help to navigate regulatory and legal aspects, and assistance in establishing goals to help grantees successfully transfer assistive technologies to consumers. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONA large amount of research and development into assistive technology does not lead to tech transfer which means that these technologies are not getting to the people that need them.Educating tech transfer offices at universities about how to transfer AT would improve outcomes greatly.Creating a community of practice where grantees can find academic or industry partners would also increase the likelihood of tech transfer.Some tools to catalyse these improvements are: mentoring, access to consultants, podcasts, and online training.