# Perspectives of Persons With Disabilities Toward Home Adaptations and Assistive Products in Rural Northern Thailand: Comparative Study

## TL;DR

People with disabilities in rural northern Thailand report improved safety and quality of life with home adaptations and assistive products, but face financial and service access barriers.

## Contribution

This study compares perspectives of users and non-users of home adaptations and assistive products in rural Thailand, highlighting barriers and benefits.

## Key findings

- Experienced users reported higher satisfaction and safety confidence compared to non-users.
- Both groups recognized the benefits of home adaptations and assistive products in improving daily functioning and reducing accident risks.
- Financial constraints were the main barrier to adoption for over 90% of participants.

## Abstract

Persons with disabilities in rural northern Thailand face significant challenges in accessing appropriate support, particularly in Chiang Mai’s rural community, where limited infrastructure and socioeconomic barriers hinder their independence. Home adaptations (HAs) and assistive products (APs) play a crucial role in enhancing the safety and quality of life; however, perspectives on their use remain underexplored.

This study aimed to compare the views of persons with disabilities with and without experience of using HAs and APs, focusing on their perceptions of the environmental conditions, safety, benefits, and barriers.

A comparative cross-sectional survey was conducted among persons with disabilities living in rural communities of the Doilor Subdistrict, Chiang Mai. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney U test.

In 96 participants, 84 completed the questionnaire (48 without and 36 with experience using HAs and APs). Most individuals without HAs and APs were dissatisfied with their living conditions (36/48, 75%) and felt unsafe at home (33/48, 69%), whereas experienced users reported higher satisfaction (21/36, 58%) and safety confidence (25/36, 69%). While those without HAs and APs believed these adaptations could enhance their engagement at home, 75% (27/36) of experienced users reported that they had improved their participation skills. Significant differences were found between groups in perspectives on home conditions, living environment, and APs (P<.001), confidence in safety (P<.001), and skills for home engagement (P<.03). Both groups recognized the benefits of HAs and APs, with 94% (45/48) and 91% (33/36; without and with experience, respectively) agreeing that they improve daily functioning, and 95% (46/48) and 92% (33/36) acknowledging their role in reducing accident risks. HAs and APs significantly enhanced social participation (P<.04), with 41% (15/36) of experienced users strongly agreeing, compared with 19% (9/48) of those without experience. Financial constraints were the main barrier to HAs and APs adoption for over 90% of both groups. Service access challenges were more common among experienced users (32/36, 89%) than those without experience (36/48, 75%), with no significant differences in difficulties accessing services for home modifications and assistive devices.

The study indicates that persons with disabilities face various problems. Both with and without experience of HAs and APs need to enhance their home modification and support to bridge the gaps in accessibility and practical solutions to improve the quality of life for persons with disabilities in rural communities. This study recommends that policymakers should focus on increasing funding, improving service delivery, and enhancing awareness programs to support individuals in need. Future research should explore the long-term impacts of HAs on quality of life and independence.