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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Danemayer, Jamie, Boggs, Dorothy, Delgado Ramos, Vinicius, Smith, Emma, Kular, Ariana, Bhot, William, Ramos-Barajas, Felipe, Polack, Sarah, Holloway, Cathy
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