Cargando…
Estimating need and coverage for five priority assistive products: a systematic review of global population-based research
INTRODUCTION: To improve access to assistive products (APs) globally, data must be available to inform evidence-based decision-making, policy development and evaluation, and market-shaping interventions. METHODS: This systematic review was undertaken to identify studies presenting population-based e...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8804659/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35101862 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007662 |
_version_ | 1784643126926770176 |
---|---|
author | Danemayer, Jamie Boggs, Dorothy Delgado Ramos, Vinicius Smith, Emma Kular, Ariana Bhot, William Ramos-Barajas, Felipe Polack, Sarah Holloway, Cathy |
author_facet | Danemayer, Jamie Boggs, Dorothy Delgado Ramos, Vinicius Smith, Emma Kular, Ariana Bhot, William Ramos-Barajas, Felipe Polack, Sarah Holloway, Cathy |
author_sort | Danemayer, Jamie |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: To improve access to assistive products (APs) globally, data must be available to inform evidence-based decision-making, policy development and evaluation, and market-shaping interventions. METHODS: This systematic review was undertaken to identify studies presenting population-based estimates of need and coverage for five APs (hearing aids, limb prostheses, wheelchairs, glasses and personal digital assistants) grouped by four functional domains (hearing, mobility, vision and cognition). RESULTS: Data including 656 AP access indicators were extracted from 207 studies, most of which (n=199, 96%) were cross-sectional, either collecting primary (n=167) or using secondary (n=32) data. There was considerable heterogeneity in assessment approaches used and how AP indicators were reported; over half (n=110) used a combination of clinical and self-reported assessment data. Of 35 studies reporting AP use out of all people with functional difficulty in the corresponding functional domains, the proportions ranged from 4.5% to 47.0% for hearing aids, from 0.9% to 17.6% for mobility devices, and from 0.1% to 86.6% for near and distance glasses. Studies reporting AP need indicators demonstrated >60% unmet need for each of the five APs in most settings. CONCLUSION: Variation in definitions of indicators of AP access have likely led to overestimates/underestimates of need and coverage, particularly, where the relationship between functioning difficulty and the need for an AP is complex. This review demonstrates high unmet need for APs globally, due in part to disparate data across this sector, and emphasises the need to standardise AP data collection and reporting strategies to provide a comparable evidence base to improve access to APs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8804659 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88046592022-02-07 Estimating need and coverage for five priority assistive products: a systematic review of global population-based research Danemayer, Jamie Boggs, Dorothy Delgado Ramos, Vinicius Smith, Emma Kular, Ariana Bhot, William Ramos-Barajas, Felipe Polack, Sarah Holloway, Cathy BMJ Glob Health Original Research INTRODUCTION: To improve access to assistive products (APs) globally, data must be available to inform evidence-based decision-making, policy development and evaluation, and market-shaping interventions. METHODS: This systematic review was undertaken to identify studies presenting population-based estimates of need and coverage for five APs (hearing aids, limb prostheses, wheelchairs, glasses and personal digital assistants) grouped by four functional domains (hearing, mobility, vision and cognition). RESULTS: Data including 656 AP access indicators were extracted from 207 studies, most of which (n=199, 96%) were cross-sectional, either collecting primary (n=167) or using secondary (n=32) data. There was considerable heterogeneity in assessment approaches used and how AP indicators were reported; over half (n=110) used a combination of clinical and self-reported assessment data. Of 35 studies reporting AP use out of all people with functional difficulty in the corresponding functional domains, the proportions ranged from 4.5% to 47.0% for hearing aids, from 0.9% to 17.6% for mobility devices, and from 0.1% to 86.6% for near and distance glasses. Studies reporting AP need indicators demonstrated >60% unmet need for each of the five APs in most settings. CONCLUSION: Variation in definitions of indicators of AP access have likely led to overestimates/underestimates of need and coverage, particularly, where the relationship between functioning difficulty and the need for an AP is complex. This review demonstrates high unmet need for APs globally, due in part to disparate data across this sector, and emphasises the need to standardise AP data collection and reporting strategies to provide a comparable evidence base to improve access to APs. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-01-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8804659/ /pubmed/35101862 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007662 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Danemayer, Jamie Boggs, Dorothy Delgado Ramos, Vinicius Smith, Emma Kular, Ariana Bhot, William Ramos-Barajas, Felipe Polack, Sarah Holloway, Cathy Estimating need and coverage for five priority assistive products: a systematic review of global population-based research |
title | Estimating need and coverage for five priority assistive products: a systematic review of global population-based research |
title_full | Estimating need and coverage for five priority assistive products: a systematic review of global population-based research |
title_fullStr | Estimating need and coverage for five priority assistive products: a systematic review of global population-based research |
title_full_unstemmed | Estimating need and coverage for five priority assistive products: a systematic review of global population-based research |
title_short | Estimating need and coverage for five priority assistive products: a systematic review of global population-based research |
title_sort | estimating need and coverage for five priority assistive products: a systematic review of global population-based research |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8804659/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35101862 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007662 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT danemayerjamie estimatingneedandcoverageforfivepriorityassistiveproductsasystematicreviewofglobalpopulationbasedresearch AT boggsdorothy estimatingneedandcoverageforfivepriorityassistiveproductsasystematicreviewofglobalpopulationbasedresearch AT delgadoramosvinicius estimatingneedandcoverageforfivepriorityassistiveproductsasystematicreviewofglobalpopulationbasedresearch AT smithemma estimatingneedandcoverageforfivepriorityassistiveproductsasystematicreviewofglobalpopulationbasedresearch AT kularariana estimatingneedandcoverageforfivepriorityassistiveproductsasystematicreviewofglobalpopulationbasedresearch AT bhotwilliam estimatingneedandcoverageforfivepriorityassistiveproductsasystematicreviewofglobalpopulationbasedresearch AT ramosbarajasfelipe estimatingneedandcoverageforfivepriorityassistiveproductsasystematicreviewofglobalpopulationbasedresearch AT polacksarah estimatingneedandcoverageforfivepriorityassistiveproductsasystematicreviewofglobalpopulationbasedresearch AT hollowaycathy estimatingneedandcoverageforfivepriorityassistiveproductsasystematicreviewofglobalpopulationbasedresearch |