If the US Makes an APL and AT Database

In 2016, the WHO established its first Priority Assistive Products List (APL), which includes 50 assistive products that hold the utmost importance [1]. ‘Assistive products’ is the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) terminology for ‘assistive technology.’ As the report discusses, the development of the APL was very intricate, going through 4 major steps, as each step is briefly summarized below [1]:

1. Scoping review: extracted 205 articles relating to assistive products out of an original 10,961.

2. Delphi Exercise: a three round method to expand and then narrow down the list, finishing at 50 assistive products. 

3. Global Survey: 10,208 people were surveyed from 161 countries to select the 50 assistive products with the most priority out of 100 from round 2 of the delphi exercise. 

4. Consensus Meeting: a 2 day meeting with 70 stakeholders representing each WHO region to finalize the list.

You can click here to view the entire Priority Assistive Products List (APL), which begins on page 4. 

What should the United States take away from this? While we have our state assistive technology (AT) programs with libraries of AT, there should be uniformity in compiling our own Priority Assistive Products List (APL) as well as creating an expanded database of all available AT. 

While the concept of an APL is to better support countries that are further behind on assistive technology awareness, access, policies, and provisions, there is potential for the United States to develop an advanced APL as it could add devices and softwares that aren’t as common, but hold the utmost importance. This would bring additional awareness for specific technologies for individuals, families, schools, AT professionals, etc. Having an APL categorized based on area of need may also be beneficial and while utilizing strategies to identify all of the potential categories of AT needs. For example, a section on AT for education will be extremely beneficial for students with IEPs and their families, as AT needs are supposed to be met for all students with an IEP, as coded under IDEA. 

Yes, there will be overlap in certain devices and technologies, but categorizing the APL will help everyone have a clearer understanding of the list and make it more accessible for AT users and others to navigate the list more effectively, and therefore have their AT needs better understood and met.  

The United States creating its own APL would likely require federal legislation to begin this process, a select number of AT experts to be appointed into an APL task force, and a large survey population; all in creating a comprehensive APL.

In addition to the APL being made as a condensed AT list, there should also be a national database created for all available assistive technologies. There was a well known AT database, AbleData, which was made by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), but the database was unfortunately taken down in 2020. Having a centralized information system for AT is beneficial for everyone, including individuals and families, state AT programs, schools, direct service providers, and more. The creation (or recreation under the NIDILRR) of an AT database would require a lot of personnel to jumpstart, but it should be pursued nonetheless. For AT across the world, there is Eastin, a global database. 

Sources

[1]: Priority Assistive Products List, World Health Organization, 2016, iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/207694/WHO_EMP_PHI_2016.01 .