Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34991540›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

The experiences, needs and barriers of people with impairments related to usability and accessibility of digital health solutions, levels of involvement in the design process and strategies for participatory and universal design: a scoping review.

Silje Havrevold Henni, Sigurd Maurud, Kristin Skeide Fuglerud, Anne Moen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. "Frontiers in digital health · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Silje Havrevold HenniDepartment of Nursing Science, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1130, Blindern, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway. s.h.henni@medisin.uio.no.
Sigurd MaurudDepartment of Nursing Science, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1130, Blindern, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway.
Kristin Skeide FuglerudNorwegian Computing Center, P.O. Box 114, Blindern, N-0314, Oslo, Norway.
Anne MoenDepartment of Nursing Science, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1130, Blindern, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGlobally, the number of digital health solutions is increasing, but they are not always designed with access and utilisation for people with impairments in mind. Development efforts have often not included the voice and requirements of people with impairments, who make up 15% of the world's population, despite the fact that this can help ensure broad access and utilisation. Little attention to and limited inclusion of people with impairments in the development of digital health solutions results in continued and reinforced inequalities in health services provision for people with impairments. This review investigates the needs and barriers of people with impairments related to use of digital health solutions and strategies to foster user participation, access and utilisation of digital health solutions.

methodsThis scoping review, based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual, had five phases: 1) identification of aim and research questions, 2) literature search in five databases (April/May 2020), 3) literature screening based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 4) data extraction, and (5) reporting results.

resultsThe literature search resulted in 5968 sources, of which 25 met our inclusion criteria. People with impairments appreciate digital health solutions that are designed to meet their specific impairment-related challenges. The reported needs and barriers related to technological design varied depending on the individuals' challenges. The literature reported different types of participatory co-design strategies to foster access and utilisation of digital health solutions.

conclusionThis scoping review support needs for increased awareness among developers to design solutions that meet people's needs, contexts and states of health. By applying universal design as a strategy and including people with different types of impairments, starting in the idea creation phase of digital health solutions and throughout the development, developers can design solutions with better accessibility. Digital health solutions that are accessible and usable have a tremendous opportunity to foster health equity and achieve health promotion, prevention and self-care. This in turn can contribute to closing the gap between different population groups, reduce disparities and get the most from available healthcare services.

Indexed as

Universal DesignHumansDigital healthDisabilityHealth services accessibilityInclusive designParticipatory designUniversal designUser participation

Identifiers

PMID34991540
PMCPMC8734131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.