ArticleScientific reports2025
User satisfaction and dissatisfaction with assistive technology devices and services in India.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Assessing assistive technology needs, unmet demands, barriers, and gaps in the Indian population: a protocol for large epidemiological survey.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
User satisfaction with Assistive Technology (AT) is one of the crucial factors in the success of any AT service. The current study aimed to estimate satisfaction with AT and the reasons for dissatisfaction and unsuitability among persons with functional difficulties in India. Using the WHO Rapid Assistive Technology Assessment tool, a cross-sectional study was conducted in eight districts, representing four zones of India. Multi-stage cluster random sampling and probability proportional to size techniques were used to select smaller administrative units from the larger ones. Satisfaction was reported in terms of assistive products and service delivery. In total, 8486 participants were surveyed out of which 8964 individuals were enumerated with a response rate of 94.6%. Around 22.2% (1888) of participants had functional difficulties and reported using AT, out of which 3.9% (74) were dissatisfied with their products. The assistive products, assessment and training, and repair and maintenance-related services were reported to be satisfied by approximately 92.2% (1740), 88.4% (1669), and 85.2% (1609) of respondents, respectively. Further, 3.2% (61) and 3.7% (70) of respondents reported that their AT was not suitable for home and public environments, respectively. According to 2.8% (53) respondents, their AT did not assist them in executing daily living activities. Discomfort (56.6%), poor fitting (37.7%), low quality of service (20.7%), and poor aesthetic values (18.9%) were identified as reasons for dissatisfaction. Satisfaction was good for AT received from friends and family but was poor for those received from the public sector. The study shows that overall satisfaction and suitability with AT were high among users with functional difficulties, but few have reported barriers to effective device use and facing challenges in accessing repair and follow-up services.
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.