Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37614348›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia2023

Assistive technology usage, unmet needs and barriers to access: a sub-population-based study in India.

Suraj Singh Senjam, Souvik Manna, Jugal Kishore, Anil Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Praveen Vashist, Jeewan Singh Titiyal, Pratap Kumar Jena, Donald S Christian, Uday Shankar Singh and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Suraj Singh SenjamDr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Souvik MannaDr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Jugal KishoreDepartment of Community Medicine, VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Anil KumarMinistry of Health and Family Welfare, Directorate General Health Services, Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Rajesh KumarMinistry of Health and Family Welfare, Directorate General Health Services, Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Praveen VashistDr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Jeewan Singh TitiyalDr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Pratap Kumar JenaSchool of Public Health, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Donald S ChristianDepartment of Community Medicine, GCS Medical College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Uday Shankar SinghDepartment of Community Medicine, Medical College & Shree Krishna Hospital, Bhaikaka University, Anand, Gujarat, India.
Ramachandra KamathDepartment of Community Medicine, Kodagu Institute of Medical Sciences, Government of Karnataka, Madikeri, Karnataka, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Assistive technology (AT) is essential to minimize functional limitations. The current study aimed to estimate the prevalence of needs, met and unmet needs for AT, and barriers to accessing AT among a subnational population in India. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in eight districts, representing four zones of India, using the WHO Rapid Assistive Technology Assessment (rATA) tool. The tool was administered by trained staff using read aloud technique. Multi-stage cluster random sampling was used, as well as the probability proportional to size, to select smaller administrative units from the larger ones. Findings: In total, 8486 participants were surveyed out of 8964 individuals enumerated with a response rate of 94.6%. The sample prevalence of at least one difficulty was 31.8% (2700), with 6.3% (532) having severe or total difficulties. The sample prevalence for AT need was 27.8% (2357) with an estimated population prevalence of 24.5% (95% CI: 23.5-25.4). Similarly, the sample prevalence of unmet needs was 9.7% (823) with an estimated population unmet needs of 8.0% (95% CI: 7.43-8.60). The unmet needs among persons with severe or total difficulties was 52.3% (278/532), and was higher among females, rural residents, and older persons. Spectacles were the most used products, followed by canes/sticks, tripods, and quadripods. Nearly two-thirds of AT users purchased assistive products at their own expense, particularly from the private sector. The inability to afford AT (36.9%) was the most common barrier. Interpretation: The results show that the need for AT was substantial in the study population, the highest being for seeing difficulties. The unmet needs are higher in females, older population, rural residents, and persons having serious difficulties. While the majority of users have to make out-of-pocket payments to obtain AT, inability to afford and limited availability were the common barriers among those with unmet needs. Funding: This research is non-commercial, and was conducted in the interest of public health. The authors have not declared any specific grant for this research.

Indexed as

Assistive technologyBarriersIndiaNeedsSourcesUnmet needsUse

Identifiers

PMID37614348
PMCPMC10442958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.