Towards the Development of a Policy of Recycling Assistive Technology for People Living with a Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assistive technology (AT) or assistive devices, such as wheelchairs, bathroom safety equipment and lift systems, constitute one type of equipment used to maximise independence for disabled people and fragile elderly people. The practice of recycling health care equipment has been increasingly considered to be a cost-effective and feasible means to meet consumer needs, but this has not been addressed for AT. Many countries in Europe and some Canadian provinces have recycling programmes for AT yet little is known about all the issues related to this practice, particularly from the perspectives of the various players involved. Some occupational therapists are proactive in this area but the majority are waiting for the government to start the recycling. Even if occupational therapists consider recycling AT to be a good idea, they still need political and administrative support to build an efficient practice of recycling. In November 1996, a special council in the Canadian province of Quebec recommended that rigorous procedures be put in place to recycle AT within the public health insurance system and in institutions funded by the provincial ministry of health. The aim of this article is to document the conditions necessary for the successful implementation of a recycling policy for AT in this province. A qualitative study was conducted with 22 experts in the industry, health and community sectors. Using a conceptual model of health systems, 33 elements and 99 basic factors were identified as important for the content and strategies employed in a policy of recycling AT. These elements are distributed among the technocratic, professional, market and political worlds. The discussion recommends intersectoral collaboration that takes into account the different perspectives of the various stakeholders that would be affected by a policy of recycling AT. The role of occupational therapists is also explored concerning recycling AT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".