EquIPP-AT: a framework proposition for examining equity and inclusion in assistive technology assessment

Purpose

Assistive technology (AT) assessment shapes access to products, services and supports. Although discussed as a clinical, technical and user-centred process, it has been less systematically examined as an equity and inclusion process. This article proposes EquIPP-AT, a provisional AT-specific adaptation of the Equity and Inclusion in Policy Processes framework.

Materials and Methods

This first-stage development adapts EquIPP to AT assessment through evidence synthesis and expert judgement, informed by AT service delivery and outcome literature, Critical Disability Studies, epistemic injustice, the capabilities approach, and comparison with EquiFrame and ARISE. Cases from Norway and Brazil and donation-mediated wheelchair provision in Kenya and the Philippines are used illustratively across provision contexts.

Results

EquIPP-AT is organised across three analytical levels: assessment governance and rules, assessment practices, and lived experience of assessment. It applies nine equity dimensions: participation and involvement; individual needs and circumstances; accessibility and reasonable adjustments; leadership, governance and accountability; data, evidence and monitoring; organisational commitment and culture; experiential expertise and co-production; communication and influence; and partnership and collaboration. Four contextual axes are identified: structural variation, marginality and precarity, cultural-epistemic difference, and temporality. It applies across professional-led, peer-supported, collaborative, commercial and self-directed assessment routes.

Conclusion

EquIPP-AT is a provisional analytical framework, not a validated instrument. It supports systematic inquiry into how AT assessment processes include, exclude, recognise, constrain or enable AT users. Its levels, dimensions and axes remain propositions requiring testing and refinement through consultation and participatory development with AT users and Disabled People’s Organisations, followed by empirical piloting across contrasting contexts.