Measuring the adoption of internet and communication technologies among practitioners in routine disability services: a stepped inclusive approach

N/ACitations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: Existing measurements of the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) among practitioners in disability services often treat ICT adoption as a monolithic concept, overlooking its multifaceted nature within the disability field. This study introduces a stepped, inclusive approach to capturing this complexity, elucidating disparities in the utilization of various ICT dimensions, the present vs. anticipated use, and variations among different clinical-demographic groups. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Hong Kong, gathering valid data from 324 practitioners spanning diverse disciplines and disability services. Results: Data analysis produced a three-factor model categorizing ICT tools into (1) information and communication tools, (2) screening and monitoring tools, and (3) treatment and rehabilitation tools. The first category was identified as the predominant ICT utilized currently, with significant projected growth in the latter two categories’ usage. Variances in current ICT adoption were influenced by practitioners’ roles, clientele, positions, affiliating agencies, and educational attainments. Conclusions: This research provides a deeper understanding of the key dimensions of ICT adoption within disability services. It underscores the importance of devising specific and customized strategies for the effective integration of ICTs, ensuring a more tailored approach to meeting the unique demands of the disability field.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cui, J. (2025). Measuring the adoption of internet and communication technologies among practitioners in routine disability services: a stepped inclusive approach. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 20(3), 536–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2024.2367080

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free