Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35101862›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2022

Estimating need and coverage for five priority assistive products: a systematic review of global population-based research.

Jamie Danemayer, Dorothy Boggs, Vinicius Delgado Ramos, Emma Smith, Ariana Kular, William Bhot, Felipe Ramos-Barajas, Sarah Polack, Cathy Holloway

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Development of Priority Assistive Product Lists in Three African Countries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Assistive technology access in longitudinal datasets: a global review.International journal of population data science · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

9 authors.

Jamie DanemayerDepartment of Computer Science, Global Disability Innovation Hub, University College London, London, UK jamie.danemayer.21@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0060-5160
Dorothy BoggsInternational Centre for Evidence in Disability, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5380-2785
Vinicius Delgado RamosHospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Emma SmithDepartment of Psychology, Assisted Living and Learning Institute, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland.
Ariana KularDepartment of Health Sciences, Mental Health and Wellbeing, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.
William BhotDepartment of Computer Science, Global Disability Innovation Hub, University College London, London, UK.
Felipe Ramos-BarajasDepartment of Computer Science, Global Disability Innovation Hub, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8729-2971
Sarah PolackInternational Centre for Evidence in Disability, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Cathy HollowayDepartment of Computer Science, Global Disability Innovation Hub, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Self-Help DevicesHumanshealth services researchpublic healthsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35101862
PMCPMC8804659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.