Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37966875›Full record

ReviewJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2023

Use of Assistive Technology for Persons with Psychosocial Disability: Systematic Review.

Ikenna D Ebuenyi, Celina Flocks-Monaghan, Sarju S Rai, Ralph de Vries, Soumitra S Bhuyan, Jonathan Pearlman, Nev Jones

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Ikenna D Ebuenyi *Department of Rehabilitation Science and Technology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3329-6296
Celina Flocks-MonaghanSchool of Population Health, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2810-7021
Sarju S RaiAthena Institute, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5914-1471
Ralph de VriesMedical Library, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2075-7495
Soumitra S BhuyanEdward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7247-4438
Jonathan PearlmanDepartment of Rehabilitation Science and Technology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0830-9136
Nev JonesSchool of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4177-0621
University of Pittsburgh · USAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IERutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssistive technology (AT) refers to assistive products (AP) and associated systems and services that are relevant for function, independence, well-being, and quality of life for individuals with disabilities. There is a high unmet need for AT for persons with disabilities and this is worse for persons with cognitive and mental or psychosocial disabilities (PDs). Further, information and knowledge on AT for PDs is limited.

objectiveThe aim of this review was to explore the pattern of AT use among persons with PDs and its associated socioeconomic and health benefits.

methodsThe review was reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), and we conducted systematic searches in the 4 databases: PubMed, Embase.com, APA PsycInfo (Ebsco), and Web of Science (Core Collection) with the following index terms: "Assistive Technology," "Self-Help Devices," "Quality of Life," "Activities of Daily Living," "Mental Disorders." We included only AT individuals with PDs can independently use without reliance on a provider. Identified papers were exported to EndNote (Clarivate) and we undertook a narrative synthesis of the included studies.

resultsIn total, 5 studies were included in the review which reported use of different AT for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety disorders. The APs described in the included studies are Palm tungsten T3 handheld computer, MOBUS, personal digital assistant, automated pill cap, weighted chain blankets, and smartphone function. All the AT products identified in the studies were found to be easily usable by individuals with PDs. The APs reported in the included studies have broad impact and influence on social function, productivity, and treatment or management. The studies were heterogeneous and were all conducted in high-income countries.

conclusionsOur study contributes to and strengthens existing evidence on the relevance of AT for PDs and its potential to support socioeconomic participation and health. Although AT has the potential to improve function and participation for individuals with PDs; this review highlights that research on the subject is limited. Further research and health policy changes are needed to improve research and AT service provision for individuals with PDs especially in low-income settings.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022343735; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=343735.

Indexed as

assistive productsassistive technologyhealth policyinclusionparticipationpsychosocialpsychosocial disabilityrehabilitationsocioeconomicwell-being

Identifiers

PMID37966875
PMCPMC10687692
OpenAlexW4388697485

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.