ArticleBMJ open2024
Theories, models and frameworks to understand barriers to the provision of mobility-assistive technologies: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expiratory Muscle Strength Training in COPD Dysphagia Management: A Survey of Speech-Language Pathologists.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring the Influence of a Novel App for Training and Evaluating Walking Aid Skills in Walking Aid Users: Protocol for a Pragmatic Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere is strong evidence that mobility-assistive technologies improve occupational performance, social participation, educational and employment access and overall quality of life in people with disabilities. However, people with disabilities still face barriers in accessing mobility products and related services. This review aims to summarise and synthesise: (1) theories, models and frameworks that have been used to understand mobility-assistive technology access, (2) determinants of access and (3) gaps in knowledge.
designA scoping review using the five-step framework by Arksey and O'Malley. DATA SOURCES: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and SCOPUS databases for publications published between 2000 and 2024. We searched for articles published up to 20 March 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included English-published literature in peer-reviewed journals that reported (a) barriers to the provision of mobility-assistive technologies, (b) including at least one theory, model or framework and (c) between 2000 and 2024. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We extracted the study characteristics, theories, models, framework usage, research recommendations, key findings on mobility-assistive technology barriers and theoretical propositions. We conduct a theoretical synthesis guided by Turner's approach.
resultsWe included 18 articles that used 8 theories, models and frameworks, synthesised into 9 propositions. The synthesised theory emphasises that mobility is essential for human flourishing, and that certain health conditions may impose restrictions on mobility. This impact can be alleviated by two direct determinants: (1) the provision of suitable services and (2) their comprehensive provision. Policies and costs influence these services indirectly. Environmental and personal factors also affect the use of these services. Ineffectively addressing these determinants can limit access to mobility-assistive technologies and subsequent disabilities.
conclusionOur synthetic model describes the logic of providing evidence-based mobility-assistive technologies, and we identify the determinants of access that can act as targets for future work to improve the provision of mobility-assistive technologies.
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.