Financial inclusion for people with disability: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Financial exclusion is a human rights issue affecting health equity. Evidence demonstrates that financial exclusion is exacerbated for people with disability and those in low- to middle-income countries (LMIC). Barriers to financial access include limited demand for services, banking inadequacies in catering to people with disability, and insufficiently accessible information technologies (ICT) and infrastructure. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review sought to identify barriers to and facilitators of financial inclusion for people with disability in LMIC. As a secondary objective, the study explored the potential of financial education and ICT utilisation as viable strategies for enhancing financial inclusion. METHODS: This review utilised the Arksey and O'Malley framework and PRISMA Checklist for systematic literature examination and data extraction. The WHO's Environmental Factors guided the analysis to propose potential interventions and to generate recommendations. RESULTS: The review analysed 26 publications from various global regions and fields including finance, business, technology, health and disability policy. It identified consistent financial inclusion barriers for people with disability, resulting in a set of global recommendations across attitudes, environment, technology, services, and policy. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations include using ICT, digital innovation and multi-stakeholder collaboration to address the financial barriers experienced by people with disability. These efforts, rooted in social justice, aim to include people with disability in LMIC as valued financial sector participants, promoting health and equity.

Main findings: There are global access barriers and enablers to financial inclusion for people living with disability. Recommendations to improve access include countering stigma and attitudinal barriers, engaging in user centred design of financial services,providing financial education and ensuring accessibility of assistive technology and ICT, along with the physical environment of the bank.Added knowledge: This study reviews the literature and offers a global overview of financial inclusion for people with disabilities, along with recommendations for universally applicable actions to enhance access.Global health impact for policy and action: Identifying barriers to financial inclusion and suggesting strategies to overcome them provides valuable guidance for policymakers and advocates working to improve access to financial services for people with disability.

Access to Assistive Technology during the COVID-19 Global Pandemic: Voices of Users and Families.

The SARS COVID-19 pandemic emerged in 2019 and has impacted people everywhere. Disparities in impact and outcomes are becoming apparent for individuals and communities which go beyond the trajectory of the disease itself, influenced by the strength and weaknesses of systems of universal health care, and the actions of civil society and government. This article is one of a series exploring COVID-19-related experiences of assistive technology (AT) users across the globe and implications for AT systems strengthening. AT such as mobility products, braille devices, and information communication technologies are key enablers of functioning, necessary to the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Reporting on a survey of 73 AT users across six global regions, we demonstrate that minority groups already living with health inequities are unduly impacted. An AT ecosystem analysis was conducted using the WHO GATE 5P framework, that is, people, products, personnel, provision and policy. AT users and families call for inclusive pandemic responses which encompass their needs across the lifespan, from very young to very old. We offer specific recommendations for future action to strengthen access to AT across public policy and civil society in pandemic preparedness and response.

Assistive Technology during the COVID-19 Global Pandemic: The Roles of Government and Civil Society in Fulfilling the Social Contract.

The COVID-19 pandemic imposed significant challenges to users of assistive technology (AT). Three key issues emerged from a series of structured qualitative interviews with 35 AT users in six low- and middle-income countries. These were (1) access to information about COVID-19 and available supports and policies, (2) insufficiency of the government response to meet the needs of AT users, and (3) the response of civil society which partially offset the gap in government response. AT users noted the need for better communication, improved planning for the delivery and maintenance of AT during times of crisis, and higher-quality standards to ensure the availability of appropriate technology.

Assistive Technology Provider Experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Globally, health systems face challenges in the delivery of assistive technology (AT) and only 10% of people are currently able to access the assistive products they need. The COVID-19 pandemic presented an uncharted path for AT providers to navigate, placing them under pressure to be agile and rapidly adapt. This article, part of a series, explores the experiences and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on AT providers and aims to inform how AT providers can be better prepared and supported in the future. A mixed methods approach was used to gather service data and perspectives from AT providers via a survey. A total of 37 responses were received from 18 countries. Service data showed extensive service disruption throughout 2020. Thematic analysis suggested significant changes to routine AT service delivery including rapid momentum towards home-based, decentralised, and digital services for which many AT providers were not prepared. Providers were required to make difficult decisions and deliver services in new ways to balance meeting demands, complying with government restrictions, and ensuring the safety of staff and clients. Few but important positives were expressed including the belief that expanded capacity to use remote and digital AT service delivery would remain useful in the future.

Regulation of the global orthotist/prosthetist workforce, and what we might learn from allied health professions with international-level regulatory support: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: By 2050, the global demand for orthotic and prosthetic services is expected to double. Unfortunately, the orthotic/prosthetic workforce is not well placed to meet this growing demand. Strengthening the regulation of orthotist/prosthetists will be key to meeting future workforce demands, however little is known about the extent of orthotist/prosthetist regulation nor the mechanisms through which regulation could best be strengthened. Fortunately, a number of allied health professions have international-level regulatory support that may serve as a model to strengthen regulation of the orthotic/prosthetic profession. The aims of this study were to describe the national-level regulation of orthotist/prosthetists globally, and the international-level regulatory support provided to allied health professions. METHOD: Two environmental scans benchmarked the national-level regulation of the orthotist/prosthetist workforce, and the regulatory support provided by international allied health professional bodies using a set of nine core practitioner standards (core standards) including: Minimum Training/Education, Entry-level Competency Standards, Scope of Practice, Code of Conduct and/or Ethics, Course Accreditation, Continuing Professional Development, Language Standard, Recency of Practice, and Return-to-Practice. Each identified country was categorised by income status (i.e. High-, Upper-Middle-, Lower-Middle-, and Low-Income countries). RESULTS: Some degree of regulation of the orthotist/prosthetist workforce was identified in 30 (15%) of the world's 197 countries. All core standards were present in 6 of these countries. Countries of higher economic status had more core standards in place than countries of lower economic status. International-level professional bodies were identified for 14 of 20 allied health professions. International bodies for the physical therapy (8 core standards) and occupational therapy (5 core standards) professions provided regulatory support to help national associations meet most of the core standards. CONCLUSION: Given the small proportion of countries that have national practitioner regulatory standards in place, most orthotist/prosthetists are working under little-to-no regulation. This presents an opportunity to develop rigorous national-level regulation that can support workforce growth to meet future workforce demands. Given the financial and expertise barriers that hinder the development of a more regulated orthotist/prosthetist workforce, particularly for Low- and Lower-Middle-Income countries, we recommend the establishment of an international professional body with the express purpose to support national-level regulation of orthotist/prosthetists, and thereby build the regulatory capacity of national orthotic/prosthetic associations.

Interassessor agreement of portfolio-based competency assessment for orthotists/prosthetists in Australia: a mixed method study.

BACKGROUND: Internationally qualified orthotists/prosthetists who want to practice in Australia must pass a portfolio-based competency assessment. Testing the agreement between independent assessors is important to engender confidence in the assessment, and continually improve the processes. OBJECTIVES: To quantify interassessor agreement for all 68 performance indicators in the Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association's Entry Level Competency Standards and where there was significant disagreement between assessors, to explore the reasons why. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed methods: explanatory sequential. METHOD: Fifteen portfolios were assigned to independent assessors. Assessors determined whether the evidence presented met the requirements of each performance indicator. Interassessor agreement was calculated using Gwet's Agreement Coefficient 1 (AC1), and these data informed semistructured interviews to explore the reasons for disagreement. RESULTS: Most performance indicators (87%) had moderate to substantial agreement (AC1 > 0.71), which could be attributed to a variety of factors including the use of a simple assessment rubric with supporting guidelines and assessor training to establish shared expectations. The remaining performance indicators (13%) had fair to slight agreement (AC1 ≤ 0.7). Interviews with assessors suggested that disagreement could be attributed to the complexity of some performance indicators, unconscious bias, and the appropriateness of the evidence presented. CONCLUSIONS: Although most performance indicators in Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association's Entry Level Competency Standard were associated with moderate to substantial interassessor agreement, there are opportunities to improve agreement by simplifying the wording of some performance indicators and revising guidelines to help applicants curate the most appropriate evidence for each performance indicator.