ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Discoverability and characteristics of health and fitness apps for deaf/hard-of-hearing and blind/low-vision users.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Regular physical activity improves health, yet Deaf/hard-of-hearing (DHH) and blind/low-vision (BLV) individuals face persistent barriers to participation. Accessible fitness apps could improve health equity if they are discoverable in mainstream marketplaces and include meaningful accessibility features that support participation. Materials and methods: A scoping search of the Apple App Store was conducted using nine DHH/BLV-related terms. After consolidating 3,265 search returns and removing duplicates, 1,735 unique apps were analyzed. Apps were classified by DHH/BLV relevance using a mixed inductive-deductive content analysis, and features and functions that support health or physical activity were consolidated. DHH/BLV-tailored fitness apps were then directly tested using a predefined accessibility assessment framework informed by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Results: Most returned apps (59.9%) were general health/fitness apps or unrelated. Only 15.7% were DHH-relevant while 6.6% were BLV-relevant, with an additional 0.5% overlapping across both groups. Most DHH-relevant apps focused on hearing-aid management, environmental or digital accessibility, or sound amplification. Most BLV-relevant apps focused on environmental accessibility, provider tools, therapeutics, or rehabilitation. Only four fitness apps tailored to DHH/BLV users were identified across the full corpus. These apps appeared inconsistently across search terms and were sometimes ranked low in search results, indicating substantial discoverability barriers. Accessibility features varied, and several apps had limited offerings or access barriers, including subscription costs and external hardware requirements. Conclusion: Disability-tailored fitness apps for DHH and BLV users were rare in Apple App Store search returns and were not consistently discoverable through relevant search terms. Improving access to these tools will require better marketplace metadata, accessibility labeling, ranking practices, and filtering options so users can more easily identify apps that match their needs. DHH/BLV community testing is needed to ensure fitness tools are accessible, usable, affordable, and effective.
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.