Search

This study aimed to investigate: (1) the characteristics of people using, or had previously used, assistance animals within community living in Australia; (2) positive and/or negative experiences of these users; and (3) educational resources that may aid public awareness. An online survey was distributed through Australian assistance animal organisations and social media channels. Past/current assistance animal users (n = 112) responded to questions on demographic and types of animal supports used, experience of assistance animal use, community attitudes experienced, and perspectives about the need for public education. Data were analysed with descriptive and inferential statistics. Content analysis provided additional insights of the positive and/or negative experiences assistance animal users had faced. Nearly all participants used an assistance dog (n = 111), and 37 (33%) used the animal for more than one type of support. Seventy percent reported experiencing both positive and negative community attitudes/reactions. Length of time of having an assistance animal was associated with significantly higher prevalence of positive attitudes/reactions, whilst users who received medical support from the animal tended to experience more negative community attitudes/reactions than other users. The majority (90%) agreed that more public education is needed regarding assistance animal public access rights. This study is the first in Australia to undertake a large-scale survey of assistance animal users with a range of disability types. It highlights the benefits and challenges of assistance animals, which could be useful to consider when determining the most appropriate support for an individual. There are a range of possible benefits, but also challenges, in the use of assistance animals that should be considered when a person with disability or health conditions, or people advising them, are determining if an animal is the most appropriate support. Assistance animals can provide multiple types of support to one user, so could offer a potential cost-benefit beyond traditional assistive devices or other types of support. To ensure better inclusion of assistance animal users, public education is needed to promote community awareness of the types of animals that meet the definition of an 'assistance animal', and thus have public access rights. In Australia, a nationally consistent government approach to the regulation, accreditation and funding of assistance animals should be established with the aim to address the current fragmented or unfair investment approach and/or discrimination experienced by some individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The principle of 'working with, not on' people with disabilities is widely espoused within inclusive research, yet historically such opportunities have not been fully realized. This paper speaks from the perspective of users of health, rehabilitation, assistive technology services, and the academics with whom they collaborate. We draw on Australia's Disability Inclusive Research Principles to reflect on the practice of inclusive research across the areas of assistive technology policy, digital information, and health access, as well as the co-design of allied health resources. We consider and provide examples of how power and knowledge play out in health and rehabilitation, the developing discourse around consumer co-design and co-production, and the challenges of enacting inclusive research. This paper is about shared power in the mechanisms of research production and our journeys towards it. Engaging in inclusive research has enabled us to assume roles beyond the binary of the 'researcher' and the 'researched'. We conclude by proposing an adaptation of the ladder of participation for inclusive research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assistance dogs, considered a form of assistive technology within Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), can support scheme participants to achieve greater independence. To receive funding, an allied health assessment report (most often from occupational therapists) is required to justify the animal as a reasonable and necessary support. Objectives: Examine Australian occupational therapists' knowledge and perceptions of assistance dogs; NDIS funding of animal supports; and resources considered useful to guide occupational therapy assessment and report writing. Method: An online anonymous survey was developed and distributed via social media channels, an email listserv, and professional association newsletters to Australian occupational therapists. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Inductive content analysis of open‐ended question responses provided additional insights regarding occupational therapists' knowledge, experiences, and information needs in relation to animal supports. Results: One hundred forty‐five completed surveys were received. A majority of participants had limited knowledge regarding the purpose, scope, and funding of assistance dogs. Only 14 participants had made a referral for an assistance dog for an NDIS participant. For the 36 participants who self‐identified as having good or excellent knowledge of one or more types of assistance dogs, benefits included increasing users' independence, confidence, and quality of life. Although participants agreed they had suitable skills to prescribe assistance dogs, greater clarification regarding their role in the NDIS assessment, advisory, and application process was seen as necessary. Conclusion: This research highlighted the need for increased information for occupational therapists regarding the various types of assistance dogs and NDIS funding rules. The provision of NDIS reporting templates, practice guidance, and professional development resources—as well as occupational therapy curriculum for near‐graduate therapists—could enhance knowledge, clinical reasoning, and practice when considering the most appropriate support and whether an assistance dog is both reasonable and necessary based on the person's goals and needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]