SynthesisBMJ global health2022
Estimating need and coverage for five priority assistive products: a systematic review of global population-based research.
Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assistive technology unmet need and barriers to access in Sri Lanka: a mixed-methods study (2024).The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2026Article
- Impact of hearing aid usage on the quality of life of the older adult in KwaZulu-Natal.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2026Article
- Functional Needs Assessment Tool for estimating population-level functional difficulties and the need for services and assistive products: pilot testing in Western Uganda.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
- Prevalence and characteristics of community-dwelling older adults using mobility devices: a cross-national comparison between the United States and China.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Demographic, socioeconomic, and social barriers to use of mobility assistive products: a multistate analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Article
- Need equality and access equity to assistive products across genders and locations in 29 countries: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Global practices in AT provision: considerations for a national assistive technology policy for health in India.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Review
- Development of Priority Assistive Product Lists in Three African Countries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Theories, models and frameworks to understand barriers to the provision of mobility-assistive technologies: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Design and Evaluation of the Extended FBS Model Based Gaze-Control Power Wheelchair for Individuals Facing Manual Control Challenges.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Assistive technology access in longitudinal datasets: a global review.International journal of population data science · 2023Review
- Exploring the Use of Washington Group Questions to Identify People with Clinical Impairments Who Need Services including Assistive Products: Results from Five Population-Based Surveys.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo improve access to assistive products (APs) globally, data must be available to inform evidence-based decision-making, policy development and evaluation, and market-shaping interventions.
methodsThis systematic review was undertaken to identify studies presenting population-based estimates of need and coverage for five APs (hearing aids, limb prostheses, wheelchairs, glasses and personal digital assistants) grouped by four functional domains (hearing, mobility, vision and cognition).
resultsData including 656 AP access indicators were extracted from 207 studies, most of which (n=199, 96%) were cross-sectional, either collecting primary (n=167) or using secondary (n=32) data. There was considerable heterogeneity in assessment approaches used and how AP indicators were reported; over half (n=110) used a combination of clinical and self-reported assessment data. Of 35 studies reporting AP use out of all people with functional difficulty in the corresponding functional domains, the proportions ranged from 4.5% to 47.0% for hearing aids, from 0.9% to 17.6% for mobility devices, and from 0.1% to 86.6% for near and distance glasses. Studies reporting AP need indicators demonstrated >60% unmet need for each of the five APs in most settings.
conclusionVariation in definitions of indicators of AP access have likely led to overestimates/underestimates of need and coverage, particularly, where the relationship between functioning difficulty and the need for an AP is complex. This review demonstrates high unmet need for APs globally, due in part to disparate data across this sector, and emphasises the need to standardise AP data collection and reporting strategies to provide a comparable evidence base to improve access to APs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.