Experiences from Assistive Technology Services and Their Delivery in Finland

  • Anne-Marie TuikkaEmail author
  • Neeraj Sachdeva
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10595)


The purpose of this article is to understand and document the level and quality of assistive technology (AT) driven rehabilitative support offered to people with impairments within Finland. Availability, accessibility and adoption of assistive technologies are of interest to this study. Currently public institutions, such as city hospitals and national social security institution, offer AT services generally on the basis of age, employment and individual needs. The main research question is, how people with impairments and their relatives perceive assistive technology delivery, use as well as continued adoption? Based on data, the different aspects of AT service delivery model and its relationship to rehabilitation process are described.

The empirical data is gathered through interviews and official documents including appropriate laws and guidelines published by public institutions. Analysis of the data highlights stages within the current system where negative experiences create distrust and dissatisfaction among AT adopters. These experiences are categorized to themes and stages which may be used for analyzing AT services and its relation to rehabilitation in future research. Further research would be needed to compare the applicability of the defined stages in analyzing delivering AT services in other countries – both similar and different to Finland.


Assistive technology Service delivery model Finland Visual impairments The autism spectrum 


  1. 1.
    Adya, M., Samant, D., Scherer, M.J., Killeen, M., Morris, M.W.: Assistive/rehabilitation technology, disability, and service delivery models. Cogn. Process. 13(Suppl 1), S75–S78 (2012). doi: 10.1007/s10339-012-0466-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartfai, A., Boman, I.-L.: Policies concerning assistive technology and home modification services for people with physical and cognitive disabilities in Sweden. NeuroRehabilitation 28(3), 303–308 (2011). doi: 10.3233/NRE-2011-0658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frankoff, D.J.: Experiences of families seeking funding for assistive technologies for children with disabilities: awareness of legal mandates. In: Efficacy of Assistive Technology Interventions. Advances in Special Education Technology, vol. 1, pp. 229–258. Emerald Group Publishing Limited (2015). doi: 10.1108/S2056-769320150000001009
  4. 4.
    Hersh, M., Johnson, M.A.: Assistive Technology for Visually Impaired and Blind People. Springer, London. Accessed 26 Apr 2017
  5. 5.
    Hitchcock, C., Stahl, S.: Assistive technology, universal design, universal design for learning: improved learning opportunities. J. Special Educ. Technol. 18(4), 45–52 (2003). doi: 10.1177/016264340301800404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    KELA: Vaativa lääkinnällinen kuntoutus ja palvelut. Accessed 30 Apr 2017
  7. 7.
    Ou, C.X., Sia, C.L.: Consumer trust and distrust: an issue of website design. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 68(12), 913–934 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Terveydenhuoltolaki 30.12.2010/1326. Section 3, 29 §.[type]=pika&search[pika]=terveydenhuoltolaki#L3P29. Accessed 30 Apr 2017
  9. 9.
    THL: Apuvälinepalvelujen työnjako. In Vammaispalvelujen käsikirja. Accessed 30 Apr 2017

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Turku School of EconomicsUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations