ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2024
Development of Priority Assistive Product Lists in Three African Countries.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From aid dependency to market transformation: harnessing international trade and innovative business models to revitalize the assistive technology ecosystem in Africa.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Review
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
Abstract
National Assistive Product Lists (APLs) play an important role in improving access to assistive products (APs). Assistive products are critical to enhancing the health, well-being, and quality of life of persons with disabilities and other functional limitations, including those associated with aging. Comparing national APL development across Malawi, Liberia, and Sierra Leone may provide insight into the differences between the resulting national APLs and how to enhance AP service delivery systems. The aim of this study was to compare how the World Health Organization's 5Ps model (people, personnel, policy, provision, products) influenced national APL development across Malawi, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. To achieve this aim, we conducted a series of qualitative interviews with representatives of key government and non-state organizations (n = 12) who had been involved in the development of the APL in each of the three countries. We used directed content analysis to review and analyze the resulting data, with the 5Ps representing the 5 areas of analysis. Our results found substantial differences between the APLs of the three countries, which were substantially influenced by the needs of assistive technology users in each of the respective countries (people). This was evident in the fact that product selection criteria differed across countries, with the most critical factor being population need. Provision systems were generally fragmented and depended heavily on donors, with a lack of coordination between the public and private sectors. None of the countries had or produced a standalone AT policy in the APL development process. County-specific factors also influenced the APL differences between countries. Our research concludes that national APLs will vary substantially if they are developed collaboratively, considering the needs of the population with consideration for the country's context and existing policies and systems.
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.