The experiences and perceptions of health-care professionals regarding assistive technology training: A systematic review

Figures & data

Table 1. Example search strategy conducted in MEDLINE.

Concept	Search terms
Population	Health Personnel; Health Occupations; Allied Health Personnel; Allied Health Occupations; Occupational Therapists; Physical Therapists; Nurses; social workers; nurs$; healthcare professional$; health care professional$; health and social care professional$; healthcare practitioner$; health profession$; allied health profession$; allied healthcare profession$; AHP; health care provider$; occupational therapist$; physiotherapist$; speech and language therapist$; psychologist$; social worker$; physical therapist$	OR
AND
Assistive technologies	Self-Help Devices; Robotics; Electronics; Equipment Design; Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; assistive tech$; assistive device$; assisted living; mobility aid$; motori?ed assist$; electronic$ assistive tech$; socially assistive robotic$; assistive robotic$; wheelchair$	OR
AND
Experiences	Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Attitude of health personnel; knowledge; staff attitude$; experience$; perception$; perspective$; challeng$; enable$; facilitat$; attitude$	OR
AND
Training	Inservice Training; Simulation Training; Teaching; teach$; train$; instruction$; instruct$; guid$; practic$; tuition; tutor$; learn$; interactive learning	OR

$ denotes truncation.

$?$ denotes wildcard (e.g., motori?ed searches for motorised and motorized).

Italics denotes Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) term.

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Page et al., 2021) showing the process of article identification and selection.

Table 2. Aims and participant demographic characteristics of the included studies.

Authors (Year published) [Country]	Aims	Participant numbers	Assistive technology type	Health profession	Age in years Mean (Range)	Ethnicity (%)	Gender (%)	Urban/rural
Aldersea et al. (1999) [The United Kingdom]	To identify where the training needs of therapists working in NHS wheelchair services existed and to gain information about the type of program required.	239 (270 total, of which 239 were health-care professionals)	Wheelchairs	OTs: 141; PTs: 39; Other therapists: 59	NR	NR	NR	NR
Andrusjak et al. (2021) [The United Kingdom]	To identify the gaps in staff knowledge regarding hearing and vision difficulties in older residents, and which practices known to improve ear and eye care in older care home residents are not commonly implemented in care homes in England.	280 (400 total, of which 280 were health-care professionals)	Hearing (e.g., hearing aids) and vision (e.g., environment adaptations)	Care home staff. Including: Health-care assistants: 210; Nurses: 56; Activity coordinators: 14	NR	NR	NR	NR
Batt-Rawden et al. (2017) [Norway]	To explore attitudes and beliefs among employees and patients at a nursing home and in home-based care services, throughout the introduction and adoption of a new digital alarm system.	14 (26 total, of which 14 were health-care professionals)	Digital alarm system	Described as nursing home employees: 14	NR	NR	NR	NR
Bergem (2020) [Norway]	To explore how important groups of actors working with young people with disabilities perceive their level of knowledge concerning adaptive equipment.	317 (522 total, of which 317 were health-care professionals)	Adaptive equipment for young people with disabilities	OTs: 317	NR	NR	NR	NR
Boger et al. (2014) [Canada]	To capture what assistive technologies are in use, factors that affect use and gaps in support from multiple stakeholders to support people living with dementia.	10 (13 total, of which 10 were health-care professionals)	To investigate type of AT in use	OTs: 10	NR	NR	All female	NR
Boman and Bartfai (2015) [Sweden]	To examine the expectations of nurses and assistant nurses when using the present mobile telepresence robotic systems. Another aim was to examine patients’ and occupational therapists’ experiences of using the MTR in their work in the hospital training apartments.	31	Mobile telepresence robot	Nurses: 23; Assistant night nurses: 5; OTs: 3	40.8 (27–66)	NR	Females: 26 (93%) Males: 2 (7%)	NR
Bourassa et al. (2021) [Canada]	To investigate and compare the current practices and perspectives of OTs who had and had not recommended a wheelchair-mounted robotic arm.	93	Wheelchair-mounted robotic arms (WMRA)	All OTs	40.7 (NR)	NR	Female: 79 (85%) Male: 13 (14%) Unknown: 1 (1%)	NR
Brady et al. (2007) [The United States of America]	To determine the extent to which assistive technology/assistive technology services were included in the curriculum for occupational therapy, physical therapy, special education, and speech language pathology programs in the United States.	153	To investigate how much AT training is included in course content	All program directors of: occupational therapy; physical therapy; special education; speech and language pathology programs.	NR	NR	NR	NR
Brophy-Arnott et al. (1992) [The United Kingdom]	To identify detailed information about clients who may benefit from using a communication aid, and it also highlighted some provision and research issues.	90 (95 total, of which 90 were health-care professionals)	To investigate type of AT in use	Nursing staff: 53; Speech and language therapists: 28; OTs: 5; GPs: 4	NR	NR	NR	NR
Burrola-Mendez et al. (2019) [India and Mexico]	To compare the effectiveness of hybrid and in-person learning methodologies based on knowledge and satisfaction among wheelchair service providers in India and Mexico.	81	Wheelchairs	Wheelchair service providers	India In-person: 36 Hybrid: 30;Mexico In-person: 35.8; Hybrid: 23.5	NR	Female: 51 (63%) Male: 30 (37%)	NR
Chmiliar (2007) [Canada]	To gather information in the following areas: (1) the current levels of and satisfaction with training in assistive technology; (2) current funders of assistive technology; (3) barriers associated with assistive technology use; and (4) the importance and availability of support strategies.	119 (248 total, of which 119 were health-care professionals)	To investigate assistive technology practices and needs	Health professional: 87; Speech and language pathologists: 32	NR	NR	NR	NR
Chua and Gorgon (2019) [Philippines]	To describe the perceived competence, pre- and post-professional training, and practice of Filipino speech-language pathologists in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC).	152	To investigate AAC use	All speech and language pathologists	27 (20–47)	NR	Female: 129 (85%) Male: 23 (15%)	NR
Clark et al. (2009) [The United Kingdom]	To develop a consensus on how best to incorporate eHealth issues into basic nursing education.	1120	eHealth	All nursing students	NR	NR	NR	NR
Compton et al. (2009) [The United States of America]	To examine the level of preparedness of North Carolina speech-language pathologists who serve school-aged children with cochlear implants.	190	Cochlear implants	All speech-language pathologists	Categorized from 22–61+ years. A majority were aged 22–35 years (83)	Caucasian: 177 (93%) African American: 7 (4%) Other: 3 (1.5%) Hispanic: 2 (1%) Unknown: 1 (0.5%)	Female: 182 (96%) Male: 5 (3%) Unknown: 3 (1%)	Most participants were from an urban area (146–77%)
Danial-Saad et al. (2015) [Israel]	To evaluate the ability of a novel clinical decision support system (CDSS) to help novice clinicians learn about and attain a more effective, expert-driven, decision-making process for selecting physically controllable pointing devices by means of the prescription methodology.	55	Ontology-Supported Computerize Assistive Technology Recommender (OSCAR)	All OTs	NR (26–66)	NR	All female	NR
De Leeuw et al. (2020) [The Netherlands]	To identify factors that influence the adoption of health information technology in a sample of nurses who describe themselves as digitally lagging behind the majority of their colleagues.	10	Health information technology	All nurses	56 (52–63)	NR	Female: 7 (70%) Male: 3 (30%)	NR
Demain et al. (2013) [The United Kingdom]	To investigate patients’, family caregivers and health professionals’ experiences and perceptions of stroke upper-limb rehabilitation and assistive technology use.	6 (21 total, of which six were health-care professionals)	Various	PTs: 3; OTs: 2; Doctor: 1	NR	NR	Female: 5 (83%) Male: 1 (17%)	NR
Dishman et al. (2021) [The United States of America]	To examine occupational therapists’ perceptions of the AT education received in occupational therapy entry-level programs.	148	AT training in general	All OTs	NR	NR	NR	NR
Estes and Ishee (2007) [The United States of America]	To identify the effect of a PowerPoint presentation to introduce an emerging high technology device.	57	Assistive Dining Device	OTs: 30; OT students: 27	Categorized from 18 to 54+ years. A majority aged between 18–35 years (41).	NR	Female: 53 (93%) Male: 4 (7%)	NR
Farsjø et al. (2019) [Norway]	To explore the experiences and perspectives of health-care professionals who used our nutrition app for home‐care services.	24	Appetitus app (advises on weight gain and maintenance)	Nurses: 11; Supervisor: 5; Home help aide: 4; Nursing students: 2; Social worker: 1; Others: 1	43 (23–65)	NR	Female: 23 (96%) Male: 1 (4%)	NR
Feijt et al. (2018) [The Netherlands]	To gain an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the drivers and barriers for psychologists in adopting eMental health tools.	12	Electronic/online mental health tools	All clinical psychologists	Categorized from 20 to 60+ years. Most aged between 30 and 59 years (9)	NR	Female: 8 (67%) Male: 4 (33%)	NR
Flynn et al. (2019) [Australia]	To explore occupational therapists’ and physiotherapists’ perceptions of RT-UL and the perceived barriers and enablers influencing implementation.	12	Robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb (RT-UL)	OTs: 6; PTs: 6	NR (23–51)	NR	Female: 9 (75%) Male: 3 (25%)	NR
Giesbrecht (2021) [Canada]	Retrospective review of a large dataset of student cohorts from a single site and delineate bootcamp effects on Wheelchair Skills Test-Questionnaire scores.	307	Wheelchairs	All OT students	NR	NR	NR	NR
Gitlow and Sanford (2003) [The United States of America]	To explore the AT education needs of allied health professionals in a rural state.	62	General AT devices	OTs: 21; physical therapists: 21; speech and language pathologists: 20	NR	NR	Female: 50 (81%) Male: 9 (15%)	Rural
Glass and Hall (1987) [The United States of America]	To explore occupational therapists’ views about the use of robotic aids for people with disabilities.	51	Robotic aids	All OTs	31.5 (NR)	NR	NR	NR
Graham et al. (2022) [New Zealand]	To examine the design requirements of a telehealth wheelchair assessment service from the perspectives of key stakeholders.	23 (42 total, of which 23 were health-care professionals)	Telehealth for wheelchair assessment	OTs: 19; PTs: 4	26–35: 2 (10.5%) 36–45: 7 (36.8%) 46–55: 7 (36.8%) 56–65: 3 (15.8%)	NZ European: 19 (83%) European: 2 (7%) Maori: 1 (4%) Asian: 1 (4%)	All female	NR
Guay et al. (2013) [Canada]	To explore the support home health aides want to help them choose bathroom equipment for community-dwelling clients with bathing difficulties.	3	Bathing equipment	Home health aides	NR (52–58)	NR	Female: 1 (33%) Male: 2 (67%)	NR
Hall et al. (2017) [The United Kingdom]	To explore the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of monitoring technologies in care homes.	24 (42 total, of which 24 were health-care professionals)	Monitoring technologies (e.g., wearable location-tracking devices)	Care workers: 12; Nurses: 7; Managers: 5	39.75 (21–64)	NR	Reported as: “vast majority were females”	Urban
Hemsley et al. (2014) [Australia]	To investigate the views of allied health and nursing staff on supporting the communication of children with cerebral palsy and complex communication needs in hospital.	49	Various: aimed at supporting communication children with cerebral palsy	Described as community and hospital-based allied health professionals and nurses	NR	NR	NR	NR
Holthe et al. (2020) [Norway]	To explore how community health-care workers enacted current policy on technology with home-dwelling citizens with mild cognitive impairment and dementia.	24	Various	Nurses: 11; care workers: 7; PTs: 4; OTs: 2	NR	NR	NR	NR
Hughes et al. (2014) [The United Kingdom]	To understand patients’, carers’ and health-care professionals’ experience and views of upper limb rehabilitation and ATs, to identify barriers and opportunities critical to the effective translation of ATs into clinical practice.	292 (419 total, of which 292 were health-care professionals)	Various use in stroke rehabilitation	Percentages instead of numbers given: PTs: (51%); OTs: (43%); Nurses: (5%); Doctors: (1%)	NR	NR	NR	NR
Huisman and Kort (2019) [The United Kingdom]	To which extent professionals and clients engage with the Zora robot and/or accept the robot.	62	Robot aimed at improving social and physical activities for older people living in care homes	Numbers not provided, but included: Activity counselors; Nurses; PTs	NR (16–62)	NR	NR	NR
Jans and Scherer (2006) [The United States of America]	To describe the diverse audiences being trained, and the content and methods of training in US assistive technology training programs.	55	Assistive technology training for students	NR	NA	NA	NA	NA
Jarvis et al. (2017) [Australia]	To describe the attitudes and practices of occupational therapists in recommending and using assistive technology for persons with dementia who have difficulties with way finding in the community.	85	Assistive devices for people living with dementia	All OTs	NR	NR	Females: 78 (92%) Males: 7 (8%)	NR
Karlsson et al. (2018) [Australia]	To explore how classroom teachers, allied health professionals, students with cerebral palsy, and their parents view high-tech assistive technology service delivery in the classroom.	16 (28 total, of which 16 were health-care professionals)	Various assistive technology devices used at school	OTs: 10; Speech and language pathologists: 6	NR	NR	Females: 15 (94%) Males: 1 (6%)	NR
Leite et al. (2018) [Brazil]	To identify the knowledge of professionals about assistive technology and its importance in the life of the elderly.	27 (45 total, of which 27 were health-care professionals)	Various assistive technology devices used with older people	Nurses: 11; Dentists: 5 PTs: 4; Nursing staff: 4; Medical doctors: 3	NR	NR	NR	NR
Liang et al. (2019) [Taiwan]	To explore nurses’ views on the potential use of robotics in the pediatric unit.	23	Robotics	All nurses	30.8 (25.4–45.1)	NR	All female	NR
Long and Perry (2008)) [The United States of America]	To determine the perceived adequacy of previous training in AT, specific training needs, preferred methods of training, and the confidence level of pediatric physical therapists in providing AT.	380	Assistive technology training	All pediatric physical therapists	NR	NR	NR	NR
Long et al. (2007) [The United States of America]	To determine the specific assistive technology training needs of pediatric occupational therapists.	272	Assistive technology training	All OTs	NR	White: 245 (90%) – others not recorded	Female: 261 (96%) Male: 11 (4%)	NR
Magnusson (2019) [Sweden]	To compare and synthesize findings related to experiences of prosthetic and orthotic service delivery in Tanzania, Malawi, Sierra Leone and Pakistan from the perspective of local professionals.	49	Prosthetic and orthotic services	All prosthetist/orthotist technicians	NR (23–57)	NR	Female: 9 (18%) Male: 40 (82%)	Urban and rural
Magnusson and Ramstrand (2009) [Pakistan]	To explore areas in which education at the Pakistan Institute of Prosthetic & Orthotic Science (PIPOS) could be improved or supplemented to facilitate clinical practice of graduates.	15	Prosthetic and orthotic devices	All graduates working as prosthetists/orthotists	25.9 (23–30)	NR	Female: 5 (33%) Male: 10 (67%)	Urban and rural
Martinez et al. (2020) [The United States of America]	To identify multilevel factors that influenced the implementation of environmental control units in Veterans Health Administration Spinal Cord Injury/Disorders Centers.	153 (not all respondents provided all demographics)	Environmental control units	Nurses: 72; Therapists: 15; Health-care assistants: 13; Other: 13; Doctor: 8; Biomedical engineer: 4; Psychologist or social worker: 3	Categorized: majority aged between 36 and 65 years (79).	NR	Female: 42 (30%) Male: 100 (70%)	NR
Marvin et al. (2003) [The United States of America]	To explore issues relating to speech and language pathologists experience with and education in the use of alternative and augmentative communication.	71	Alternative and augmentative communication (AAC)	All speech and language pathologist	NR	NR	NR	NR
Matthews (2001) [The United Kingdom]	To replicate survey carried out by Balandin and Iacono (1998) which identified lack of training in high tech or electronic AAC equipment for SLTs, with a view to identifying if there was a similar picture in the UK to position within the SLT profession in Australia.	320	Augmentative and alternative communication	All speech and language therapists	NR	NR	NR	NR
McGrath et al. (2017) [The United Kingdom]	(1) to identify what OTs perceive as the enabling factors that need to be in place to support their ability and comfort in prescribing Assisted Living Technology (ALT) to their older adult clients; (2) to understand how OTs overcome obstacles to the use of ALT for their clients; (3) to recommend solutions.	20	Assisted living technology	All OTs	NR	NR	NR	NR
Newton et al. (2016) [The United Kingdom]	To explore views and experiences of people with dementia, their family carers and general practitioners (GPs) on their knowledge and experience of accessing information about, and use of, AT in dementia care.	17 (56 total, of which 17 were health-care professionals)	Assistive technology in dementia care	All GPs or GP trainees	GPs: 42 (34–58); GP trainees: 30 (27–34)	NR	NR	NR
Norwood-Chapman and Burchfield (2000) [The United States of America]	Investigated the knowledge of, and attitudes about, hearing impairment and the basic skills regarding hearing aids in a sample of nursing home nurses and nursing assistants.	260	Hearing aids	Nursing assistants: 153; Nurses: 84; Unknown: 23	40.25 (18–76)	NR	NR	NR
Orton (2008) [The United Kingdom]	To identify the importance OTs attach to various factors associated with AT provision, and their practice on assessment and prescription.	36	General AT devices	All OTs	NR	NR	NR	NR
Pampoulou et al. (2018) [Cyprus]	To collect descriptive information regarding the current AAC practices by SLTs working in Cyprus.	59	Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC)	All speech and language therapists	NR	NR	NR	NR
Papadopoulos et al. (2022) [The United Kingdom]	To explore the views and attitudes of care home workers about the socially assistive robot (SAR) that was trialed in their workplace, in order to identify training needs in relation to the hypothetical future use of these robots in their workplace.	23	Socially assistive robot (SAR)	All care home workers	40–50: 26.1% Over 50: 43.5%	Asian/Asian British: 39.1%; White: 39.1%; Black African/Black Caribbean: 21.7%	NR	NR
Rasouli et al. (2021) [Norway]	To explore health-care staff’s perspectives and insights regarding AT in daily support and welfare services for people with intellectual disabilities, and to explore the associations between the use of AT and workplace-related factors and background characteristics.	187	AT for people with intellectual disabilities	Health-care staff: 176; Home-based or day service workers: 11	35.9 (19–64)	NR	Female: 133 (76%) Male: 43 (24%)	NR
Rathiram et al. (2022) [South Africa]	To describe the communication challenges and strategies of health-care students whilst managing adults with communication disorders.	23	AT for communication	All students (medical, nursing, physiotherapy, OT and dietetics and human nutrition)	NR	NR	NR	NR
Sax (2002) [The United States of America]	Describing an online model for delivering AT education to rehabilitation professionals and their responses.	120	General AT devices	All students (rehabilitation professionals)	45	White: 49%; Other ethnic background: 22%; Unknown: 29%	NR	NR
Somerville et al. (1990) [The United States of America]	Identifying the technology training needs of OTs.	1038	General AT devices	All OTs	NR	NR	NR	NR
Taherian and Davies (2018) [New Zealand]	To gain an understanding of the experiences and perspectives of AT from different stakeholders in technology adoption, in the New Zealand context.	5 (13 total, of which five were health-care professionals)	General AT devices	Speech and language therapists: 3; OTs: 1; Biomechanical engineer: 1	Categorized: Most (4) aged between 20 and 39, one over 50	NR	Female: 3 (60%) Male: 2 (40%)	NR
Toro-Hernández et al. (2020) [Colombia]	To assess the current wheelchair provision knowledge of final year OT students in Colombia.	83	Wheelchairs	All OT students	NR	NR	NR	NR
Verdonck et al. (2011) [Ireland]	To explore: Irish OTs’ views on the benefits of electronic assistive technology (EAT); their perceived competence in this area; identify their understanding of whose role it is to assess for and prescribe EAT.	56	Electronic AT	All OTs	NR	NR	NR	NR
Weakley et al. (2019) [The United States of America]	Evaluation of a video-based educational program aimed at improving HCP awareness of Aging services technologies (ASTs).	65	Aging services technologies (ASTs)	Health-care professionals and hospital volunteers	47.5 (22–77)	White: 89.1%; African American: 1.6%; Asian American: 4.6%; American Indian: 1.5%; Other: 3.1%	Female: 52 (80%) Male: 13 (20%)	NR
White (2003) [The United Kingdom]	To assess the effect that course attendance had made to both personal and service developments by surveying 30 HCPs who had attended a university validated level 3 training course on wheelchair prescription and provision for professional practice.	24	Wheelchairs	OTs: 15; PTs: 5; Rehabilitation or biomedical engineers: 4	NR	NR	NR	NR
Wormnæs and Malek (2004) [Egypt]	To explore speech therapists’ knowledge about and experiences with AAC and identify training needs.	30	Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC)	All speech and language therapists	Reported as: 80% were 30 or older	NR	Female: 22 (73%) Male: 8 (27%)	NR
Worobey et al. (2022) [The United States of America]	To test the hypothesis that remote learning to teach clinicians manual wheelchair skills is efficacious.	41	Remote learning, wheelchairs	All therapists (physical and occupational)	32.2 (NR)	Caucasian: 32 (78%)	Female: 37 (90%) Male: 4 (10%)	NR
Wright et al. (2022) [Australia]	To understand the patterns of use of sensory approaches and what demographic and clinical factors influence their use, across one health region in Queensland, Australia.	183	Sensory technology	All health-care professionals and peer support workers	39.0 (21–67)	NR	Female: 124 (67.8%) Male: 49 (26.8%) Other: 1 (0.5%) Missing: 9 (4.9%)	NR

NR = not reported (where possible, study authors were contacted to retrieve missing data); NA = not applicable; AT = assistive technology; OT = occupational therapist; PT = physiotherapist; GP = general practitioner; CDSS = clinical decision support system.

Table 3. Methods of included studies.

Authors (Year published) [Country]	Study type and design	Sampling	Data collection	Data analysis
Aldersea et al. (1999) [The United Kingdom]	Quantitative cross-sectional study	Convenience	Paper survey	Descriptive statistics, frequencies and percentages
Andrusjak et al. (2021) [The United Kingdom]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Online and paper survey	Descriptive statistics, chi-square analyses, Bonferroni adjustment
Batt-Rawden et al. (2017) [Norway]	Qualitative longitudinal case study	Convenience	One-to-one interviews, focus groups, observation	Thematic analysis, grounded theory
Bergem (2020) [Norway]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Online survey	Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests
Boger et al. (2014) [Canada]	Mixed methods cross-sectional	Convenience	One-on-one, semi-structured interviews	Quantitative data: frequency counts and descriptive statistics. Qualitative data: described as “visually analyzed to identify themes”
Boman and Bartfai (2015) [Sweden]	Mixed methods	Convenience	Questionnaires and one-on-one, semi-structured interviews	Quantitative data: descriptive statistics. Qualitative: dontent analysis
Bourassa et al. (2021) [Canada]	Quantitative cross-sectional study	Convenience	Online survey	Descriptive statistics, frequencies and percentages, means and standard deviation, two-sample test (adjusted for multiple comparisons using Benjamini-Yekutieli procedure)
Brady et al. (2007) [The United States of America]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Online survey	Descriptive statistics, frequencies and percentages
Brophy-Arnott et al. (1992) [The United Kingdom]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Paper survey	Descriptive statistics, frequencies and percentages
Burrola-Mendez et al. (2019) [India and Mexico]	Quantitative quasi-experimental study	Convenience	Online survey	Descriptive statistics, percentages and frequencies, means and standard deviation, chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables; t-student or Wilcoxon test for continuous variables
Chmiliar (2007) [Canada]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Paper survey	Percentages
Chua and Gorgon (2019) [The Philippines]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Online and paper survey	Descriptive statistics, means and standard deviations
Clark et al. (2009) [The United Kingdom]	Mixed methods	Convenience	Online survey and a workshop	NR
Compton et al. (2009) [The United States of America]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Paper survey	Descriptive statistics, frequencies and means
Danial-Saad et al. (2015) [Israel]	Quantitative prospective cohort study	NR	Questionnaires	Descriptive statistics, Mann–Whitney U test
De Leeuw et al. (2020) [The Netherlands]	Qualitative cross-sectional	Purposive	Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews	Thematic analysis
Demain et al. (2013) [The United Kingdom]	Qualitative cross-sectional	Purposive	An interactive exhibition and four focus groups	Thematic analysis
Dishman et al. (2021) [The United States of America]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Online survey	Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and standard deviations. Chi-square analyses.
Estes and Ishee (2007) [The United States of America]	Quantitative cross-sectional	Convenience	Questionnaires	Descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test, MANOVA
Farsjø et al. (2019) [Norway]	Qualitative cross-sectional	Convenience	One-on-one, semi-structured interviews and focus groups	Content analysis
Feijt et al. (2018) [The Netherlands]	Qualitative descriptive approach	Theoretical	In-depth semi-structured interviews	Thematic analysis
Flynn et al. (2019) [Australia]	Qualitative cross-sectional	Convenience	Focus groups	Theoretical domain framework
Giesbrecht (2021) [Canada]	Quantitative evaluation	Convenience	Survey	Descriptive statistics, means and confidence intervals, ANOVA, Gabriel post-hoc analyses, Welch test, Games – Howell post-hoc analysis, Pearson correlation
Gitlow and Sanford (2003) [The United States of America]	Quantitative cross-sectional study	Probability	Paper survey	Descriptive statistics, frequencies, Chi-square tests
Glass and Hall (1987) [the United States of America]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Paper survey	Descriptive statistics, means and percentages
Graham et al. (2022) [New Zealand]	Qualitative	Convenience	Focus groups; interviews	Inductive thematic analysis
Guay et al. (2013) [Canada]	Qualitative cross-sectional	Purposive	One-on-one, semi-structured interviews	Content analysis
Hall et al. (2017) [The United Kingdom]	Qualitative, embedded multiple-case study	Purposive	One-on-one, semi-structured interviews	Framework analysis
Hemsley et al. (2014) [Australia]	Qualitative cross-sectional	Purposive	Focus groups	Thematic analysis
Holthe et al. (2020) [Norway]	Qualitative cross-sectional	Purposive	Focus groups	Thematic analysis
Hughes et al. (2014) [The United Kingdom]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Online and paper survey	Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and percentages.
Huisman and Kort (2019) [The United Kingdom]	Mixed methods	NR	Observations, questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, open interviews	Coding of qualitative data, descriptive statistics, frequencies, means, and standard deviations.
Jans and Scherer (2006) [The United States of America]	Multiple methods, longitudinal	Snowball	E-mail surveys, telephone inquiries	Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages.
Jarvis et al. (2017) [Australia]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Online and paper survey	Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages.
Karlsson et al. (2018) [Australia]	Qualitative multiple case study	Purposive; snowball	Focus groups	Linked coding
Leite et al. (2018) [Brazil]	Qualitative, descriptive, cross-sectional	Convenience	Semi-structured interviews	Content analysis
Liang et al. (2019) [Taiwan]	Qualitative, descriptive, cross-sectional	Purposive	One-on-one, semi-structured interviews	Content analysis
Long and Perry (2008) [The United States of America]	Multiple methods cross-sectional survey	Random	Paper survey – with both closed and open-ended questions	Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, Kruskal-Wallis tests, ANOVA. Qualitative data analyzed through coding.
Long et al. (2007) [The United States of America]	Multiple methods cross-sectional survey	Random	Paper survey – with both closed and open-ended questions	Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages. Qualitative data analyzed through coding.
Magnusson (2019) [Sweden]	Qualitative cross-sectional	Purposive	One-on-one interviews	Phenomenographic and content analysis
Magnusson and Ramstrand (2009) [Pakistan]	Qualitative cross-sectional study	Criterion	One-to-one semi-structured interviews	Content and thematic analysis
Martinez et al. (2020) [The United States of America]	Mixed methods	Convenience; snowball	Survey and telephone interviews	Descriptive statistics, content analysis
Marvin et al. (2003) [The United States of America]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Paper survey	Descriptive statistics, frequencies and percentages
Matthews (2001) [The United Kingdom]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Probability	Paper survey	Percentages
McGrath et al. (2017) [The United Kingdom]	Qualitative	Convenience	One-to-one, semi-structured interviews; focus groups	Thematic analysis
Newton et al. (2016) [The United Kingdom]	Qualitative	Convenience	Semi-structured interviews	Thematic analysis
Norwood-Chapman and Burchfield (2000) [The United States of America]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Paper survey	Descriptive statistics, frequencies and percentages, means and standard deviations, ANOVA, Pearson correlation coefficient
Orton (2008) [The United Kingdom]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Paper survey	Descriptive statistics, percentages, means and standard deviation, Mann-Whitney U test
Pampoulou et al. (2018) [Cyprus]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Online survey	Descriptive statistics, frequencies and percentages
Papadopoulos et al. (2022) [The United Kingdom]	Qualitative	Convenience	One-to-one semi-structured interviews	Inductive thematic analysis
Rasouli et al. (2021) [Norway]	Mixed methods	Convenience	Paper survey; focus groups	Quantitative data: descriptive statistics, means and standard deviation, Cronbach’s alpha, Spearman’s correlation Qualitative data: constant comparative thematic analysis
Rathiram et al. (2022) [South Africa]	Qualitative	Convenience	Online survey	Inductive thematic analysis
Sax (2002) [the United States of America]	Qualitative	Convenience	Written data from completed assessments	Thematic analysis
Somerville et al. (1990) [the United States of America]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Probability	Paper survey	Descriptive statistics, frequencies and percentages, means and standard deviation, chi-square tests
Taherian and Davies (2018) [New Zealand]	Qualitative	Convenience	Focus group	Thematic analysis
Toro-Hernández et al. (2020) [Colombia]	Quantitative	Convenience	Online post-training assessment	Descriptive statistics, mean and standard deviation, parametric one-sample t test
Verdonck et al. (2011) [Ireland]	Quantitative cross-sectional study	Convenience	Paper survey	Descriptive statistics, percentages
Weakley et al. (2019) [The United States of America]	Quantitative evaluation	Convenience	Survey	Descriptive statistics, independent and paired-sample t tests, regression analyses
White (2003) [The United Kingdom]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Paper survey	Percentages
Wormnæs and Malek (2004) [Egypt]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Paper survey	Descriptive statistics, frequencies and percentages, Spearman’s correlation, Mann-Whitney U test
Worobey et al. (2022) [The United States of America]	Quantitative cohort study with pre- post-training comparisons	Convenience	Online training assessments	Descriptive statistics, frequencies and percentages, means and standard deviation, paired t-tests, Wilcoxon Sign Rank test, stepwise linear regression, chi-square tests, Mann–Whitney U test, observation
Wright et al. (2022) [Australia]	Quantitative cross-sectional survey	Convenience	Online and paper survey	Descriptive statistics, frequencies and percentages, means and standard deviation, Cronbach’s alpha, ANOVA, summative content analysis

Table 4. Quality scores of included studies.

Authors (Year published) [Country]	Methods						Quality score points out of 10 (%)
	Qualitative	Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question?	Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question?	Are the findings adequately derived from the data?	Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data?	Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis, and interpretation?
Batt-Rawden et al. (2017) [Norway]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Boger et al. (2014) [Canada]		2	2	1	2	2	9 (90)
De Leeuw et al. (2020) [The Netherlands]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Demain et al. (2013) [The United Kingdom]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Farsjø et al. (2019) [Norway]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Feijt et al. (2018) [The Netherlands]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Flynn et al. (2019) [Australia]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Graham et al. (2022) [New Zealand]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Guay et al. (2013) [Canada]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Hall et al. (2017) [The United Kingdom]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Hemsley et al. (2014) [Australia]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Holthe et al. (2020) [Norway]		2	2	2	1	1	8 (80)
Karlsson et al. (2018) [Australia]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Leite et al. (2018) [Brazil]		2	1	1	2	2	8 (80)
Liang et al. (2019) [Taiwan]		1	2	2	2	2	9 (90)
Magnusson (2019)[Sweden]		2	2	1	2	2	9 (90)
Magnusson and Ramstrand (2009) [Pakistan]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
McGrath et al. (2017) [The United Kingdom]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Newton et al. (2016) [The United Kingdom]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Papadopoulos et al. (2022) [The United Kingdom]		2	1	2	1	2	8 (80)
Rathiram et al. (2022) [South Africa]		2	1	1	2	2	8 (80)
Sax (2002) [The United States of America]		1	1	2	2	2	8 (80)
Taherian and Davies (2018) [New Zealand]		2	2	2	1	2	9 (90)
	Quantitative non-Randomized	Is randomization appropriately performed?	Are the groups comparable at baseline?	Are there complete outcome data?	Are outcome assessors blinded to the intervention provided?	Did the participants adhere to the assigned intervention?	Quality score points out of 10 (%)
Burrola-Mendez et al. (2019) [India and Mexico]		1	2	1	2	1	7 (70)
Danial-Saad et al. (2015) [Israel]		1	1	2	0	2	6 (60)
Estes and Ishee (2007) [The United States of America]		2	2	2	0	2	8 (80)
Giesbrecht (2021) [Canada]		1	2	2	1	2	8 (80)
Weakley et al. (2019) [The United States of America]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Worobey et al. (2022) [The United States of America]		2	2	2	0	2	8 (80)
	Quantitative Descriptive	Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question?	Is the sample representative of the target population?	Are the measurements appropriate?	Is the risk of nonresponse bias low?	Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question?	Quality score points out of 10 (%)
Aldersea et al. (1999) [The United Kingdom]		2	1	2	1	2	8 (80)
Andrusjak et al. (2021) [The United Kingdom]		2	2	1	0	2	7 (70)
Bergem (2020) [Norway]		2	1	2	2	2	9 (90)
Bourassa et al. (2021) [Canada]		2	1	2	1	2	8 (80)
Brady et al. (2007) [The United States of America]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Chmiliar (2007) [Canada]		2	1	2	1	2	8 (80)
Chua and Gorgon (2019) [The Philippines]		2	2	2	0	2	8 (80)
Compton et al. (2009) [The United States of America]		2	2	2	1	2	9 (90)
Dishman et al. (2021) [The United States of America]		2	2	1	2	1	8 (80)
Gitlow and Sanford (2003) [The United States of The America]		2	0	2	0	2	6 (60)
Glass and Hall (1987) [The United States of America]		1	1	1	1	1	5 (50)
Hughes et al. (2014) [The United Kingdom]		2	1	2	0	2	7 (70)
Jarvis et al. (2017) [Australia]		1	2	2	0	0	7 (70)
Long et al. (2007) [The United States of America]		2	0	2	1	2	7 (70)
Marvin et al. (2003) [The United States of America]		2	1	1	2	2	8 (80)
Matthews (2001) [The United Kingdom]		2	2	1	1	2	8 (80)
Norwood-Chapman and Burchfield (2000) [The United States of America]		2	1	2	1	2	8 (80)
Orton (2008) [The United Kingdom]		2	2	1	1	2	8 (80)
Pampoulou et al. (2018) [Cyprus]		2	1	2	2	2	9 (90)
Somerville et al. (1990) [The United States of America]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Toro-Hernández et al. (2020) [Colombia]		2	1	2	1	2	8 (80)
Verdonck et al. (2011) [Ireland]		2	1	1	2	2	8 (80)
White (2003) [The United Kingdom]		1	2	1	2	2	8 (80)
Wormnæs and Malek (2004) [Egypt]		2	2	2	0	2	8 (80)
Wright et al. (2022) [Australia]		2	1	2	0	2	7 (70)
	Mixed Methods	Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question?	Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question?	Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted?	Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed?	Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?	Quality score points out of 10 (%)
Boman and Bartfai (2015) [Sweden]		0	0	0	1	0	1 (10)
Brophy-Arnott et al. (1992) [The United Kingdom]		2	1	1	1	0	5 (50)
Clark et al. (2009) [The United Kingdom]		2	1	1	1	0	5 (50)
Huisman and Kort (2019) [The United Kingdom]		0	2	0	0	0	2 (20)
Jans and Scherer (2006) [The United States of America]		2	2	2	2	2	10 (100)
Long and Perry (2008) [The United States of America]		0	2	1	1	1	5 (50)
Martinez et al. (2020) [The United States of America]		2	2	2	1	2	9 (90)
Rasouli et al. (2021) [Norway]		2	1	1	1	1	6 (60)

Table 5. Gaps in at knowledge of health-care and social care professionals and students.

1.Gaps in AT knowledge	Articles in which gaps is knowledge topics were reported
1.1 Knowledge-related issues Lack of AT knowledge Training resulted in increased knowledge and competency More comprehensiveknowledge required	Andrusjak et al. (2021), Batt-Rawden et al. (2017), Bergem (2020), Boger et al. (2014), Bourassa et al. (2021), Brady et al. (2007), Brophy-Arnott et al. (1992), Chmiliar (2007), Chua and Gorgon (2019), Clark et al. (2009), Compton et al. (2009), De Leeuw et al. (2020), Demain et al. (2013), Feijt et al. (2018), Flynn et al. (2019), Gitlow and Sanford (2003), Glass and Hall (1987), Guay et al. (2013), Hemsley et al. (2014), Holthe et al. (2020), Karlsson et al. (2018), Leite et al. (2018), McGrath et al. (2017), Newton et al. (2016), Norwood-Chapman and Burchfield (2000), Orton (2008), Papadopoulos et al. (2022), Rathiram et al. (2022), Taherian and Davies (2018), Verdonck et al. (2011), Wormnæs and Malek (2004), Worobey et al. (2022) Burrola-Mendez et al. (2019), Danial-Saad et al. (2015), Giesbrecht (2021), Pampoulou et al. (2018), Sax (2002), Weakley et al. (2019), White (2003) Brophy-Arnott et al. (1992), Chua and Gorgon (2019), Compton et al. (2009), Dishman et al. (2021), White (2003)
1.2 Training needs Assessment for AT AT devices Evidence-based benefits of AT AT regulation and legislation Funding for AT Cultural issues and influences	Bergem (2020), Bourassa et al. (2021), Brophy-Arnott et al. (1992), Flynn et al. (2019), Gitlow and Sanford (2003), Graham et al. (2022), Guay et al. (2013), Holthe et al. (2020), Long and Perry (2008), Martinez et al. (2020), Pampoulou et al. (2018), Papadopoulos et al. (2022), Rathiram et al. (2022), Somerville et al. (1990), Verdonck et al. (2011), Bergem (2020), Brophy-Arnott et al. (1992), Demain et al. (2013), Dishman et al. (2021), Feijt et al. (2018), Gitlow and Sanford (2003), Guay et al. (2013), Jarvis et al. (2017), Long et al. (2007), Long and Perry (2008), McGrath et al. (2017), Orton (2008), Somerville et al. (1990) Bourassa et al. (2021), Compton et al. (2009), Feijt et al. (2018), Flynn et al. (2019), Glass and Hall (1987), Hall et al. (2017), Hughes et al. (2014) Bergem (2020), Graham et al. (2022), Long et al. (2007), Long and Perry (2008) Gitlow and Sanford (2003), Long et al. (2007), Long and Perry (2008) Brady et al. (2007), Magnusson (2019)

Table 6. Perceived facilitators and barriers to at training.

2. Access and provision of assistive technology training	Articles in which access and provision topics were reported
2.1 Accessing AT training Lack of availability of training Variable provision of training	Boger et al. (2014), Brophy-Arnott et al. (1992), Chmiliar (2007), Magnusson and Ramstrand (2009), Marvin et al. (2003), Rasouli et al. (2021), Rathiram et al. (2022), Wright et al. (2022) Brady et al. (2007), Long et al. (2007), Matthews (2001), Martinez et al. (2020), Taherian and Davies (2018), Verdonck et al. (2011)
2.2 Improving provision of AT training In-service training forprofessionals Enhance instruction/curricula for students Opportunities for continuing professional development	Aldersea et al. (1999), Batt-Rawden et al. (2017), Brophy-Arnott et al. (1992), Chua and Gorgon (2019), Compton et al. (2009), De Leeuw et al. (2020), Hall et al. (2017), Holthe et al. (2020), Hughes et al. (2014), Jarvis et al. (2017), Leite et al. (2018), Liang et al. (2019), Long et al. (2007), Long and Perry (2008), Martinez et al. (2020), Marvin et al. (2003), McGrath et al. (2017), Norwood-Chapman and Burchfield (2000), Orton (2008), Wormnæs and Malek (2004), Wright et al. (2022) Brady et al. (2007), Chua and Gorgon (2019), Clark et al. (2009), Dishman et al. (2021), Giesbrecht (2021), Jans and Scherer (2006), Long et al. (2007), Long and Perry (2008), Magnusson (2019), Magnusson and Ramstrand (2009), Marvin et al. (2003), Matthews (2001), Pampoulou et al. (2018), Rathiram et al. (2022), Somerville et al. (1990), Toro-Hernández et al. (2020), Wormnæs and Malek (2004), Worobey et al. (2022) Aldersea et al. (1999), Chmiliar (2007), Clark et al. (2009), Farsjø et al. (2019), Gitlow and Sanford (2003), Long et al. (2007), Magnusson (2019), Pampoulou et al. (2018), Somerville et al. (1990), Taherian and Davies (2018)
2.3 Importance of a multidisciplinary approach to training Variation of knowledge between disciplines Multidisciplinary training Networking	Bergem (2020) Aldersea et al. (1999), Chua and Gorgon (2019), Clark et al. (2009), Demain et al. (2013), Jans and Scherer (2006), Long et al. (2007), Magnusson and Ramstrand (2009), Martinez et al. (2020) Gitlow and Sanford (2003), Verdonck et al. (2011)
2.4 Different means of education Mode of training, e.g., blended/distance learning, symposia/conferences, presentations, videos, and written resources Experiential learning	Aldersea et al. (1999), Burrola-Mendez et al. (2019), Chmiliar (2007), Chua and Gorgon (2019), Estes and Ishee (2007), Gitlow and Sanford (2003), Glass and Hall (1987), Leite et al. (2018), Norwood-Chapman and Burchfield (2000), Sax (2002), Weakley et al. (2019), Worobey et al. (2022) Aldersea et al. (1999), Jans and Scherer (2006), Long et al. (2007), Papadopoulos et al. (2022), White (2003)

Table 7. Mechanisms to support effective at training.

3. Mechanisms to support effective AT training	Articles in which mechanisms to support effective AT training were reported
3.1 Ongoing support following training Internal support, e.g. peersupport, mentors, superusers, managementsupport External support, e.g., technical expertise	Chmiliar (2007), Huisman and Kort (2019), Karlsson et al. (2018), Martinez et al. (2020) Aldersea et al. (1999), Andrusjak et al. (2021), Batt-Rawden et al. (2017), De Leeuw et al. (2020), Flynn et al. (2019), Graham et al. (2022), Guay et al. (2013), Holthe et al. (2020), Long et al. (2007), Magnusson (2019), McGrath et al. (2017), Newton et al. (2016), Rasouli et al. (2021), White (2003), Wright et al. (2022) Boman and Bartfai (2015), Chmiliar (2007), Karlsson et al. (2018), Taherian and Davies (2018)
3.2 Individual variables Varying IT skills of participants Time constraints Tailoring learning to individual needs	Batt-Rawden et al. (2017), Boman and Bartfai (2015), Feijt et al. (2018), Graham et al. (2022) Boman and Bartfai (2015), Chmiliar (2007), Farsjø et al. (2019), Karlsson et al. (2018) Aldersea et al. (1999), De Leeuw et al. (2020), Gitlow and Sanford (2003), Sax (2002)

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffman, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brenna, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness L. A. … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aldersea, P., Ham, R., & White, E. (1999). Wheelchair training needs for OTs and physiotherapists. British Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 6(10), 510–515. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjtr.1999.6.10.13937

 Google Scholar

Andrusjak, W., Barbosa, A., & Mountain, G. (2021). Hearing and vision care provided to older people residing in care homes: A cross-sectional survey of care home staff. BMC Geriatrics, 21(32). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01959-0

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Batt-Rawden, K. B., Björk, E., & Waaler, D. (2017). Human factors in implementation and adoption of innovations in health care services: A longitudinal case study on the introduction of new technology. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 22(3), 1–25.

 Google Scholar

Bergem, S. (2020). Knowledge among important actors in the field of adaptive equipment for young people with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 15(1), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2018.1538393

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Boger, J., Quraishi, M., Turcotte, N., & Dunal, L. (2014). The identification of assistive technologies being used to support the daily occupations of community-dwelling older adults with dementia: A cross-sectional pilot study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2013.785035

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Boman, I. L., & Bartfai, A. (2015). The first step in using a robot in brain injury rehabilitation: Patients’ and health-care professionals’ perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 10(5), 365–370. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.913712

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bourassa, J., Faieta, J., Bouffard, J., & Routhier, F. (2021). Wheelchair-mounted robotic arms: A survey of occupational therapists’ practices and perspectives. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 22, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2021.2017030

 Google Scholar

Brady, R., Long, T. M., Richards, J., & Vallin, T. (2007). Assistive technology curriculum structure and content in professional preparation service provider training programs. Journal of Allied Health, 36(4), 183–192.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Brophy-Arnott, M. B., Newell, A. F., Arnott, J. L., & Condie, D. (1992). A survey of the communication-impaired population of tayside. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 27(2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682829209012037

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Burrola-Mendez, Y., Bonilla-Escobar, F. J., Goldberg, M., Pearlman, J., & Federici, S. (2019). Comparing the effectiveness of a hybrid and in-person courses of wheelchair service provision knowledge: A controlled quasi-experimental study in India and Mexico. PLoS One, 14(5), e0217872. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217872

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chmiliar, L. (2007). Perspectives on assistive Technology: What teachers, health professionals, and speech and language pathologists have to say. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 35(1), 1–17.

 Google Scholar

Chua, E. C. K., & Gorgon, E. J. R. (2019). Augmentative and alternative communication in the Philippines: A survey of speech-language pathologist competence, training, and practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 35(2), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2019.1576223

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clark, J., Baker, B., & Baker, D. (2009). Getting eHealth into basic nursing education: Report of the RCN information in nursing project. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 146, 534–539. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-024-7-534

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Compton, M. V., Tucker, D. A., & Flynn, P. F. (2009). Preparation and perceptions of speech-language pathologists working with children with cochlear implants. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 30(3), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740108325554

 Google Scholar

Danial-Saad, A., Kuflik, T., Weiss, P. L., & Schreuer, N. (2015). Effectiveness of a clinical decision support system for pointing device prescription. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.014811

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Leeuw, J. A., Woltjer, H., & Kool, R. B. (2020). Identification of factors influencing the adoption of health information technology by nurses who are digitally lagging: In-depth interview study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(8), e15630. https://doi.org/10.2196/15630

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Demain, S., Burridge, J., Ellis-Hill, C., Hughes, A. M., Yardley, L., Tedesco-Triccas, L., & Swain, I. (2013). Assistive technologies after stroke: Self-management or fending for yourself? A focus group study. BMC Health Services Research, 13(1), 334. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-334

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dishman, K. M., Duckart, J., & Hardman, L. J. (2021). Perceptions of assistive technology education from occupational therapists certified as assistive technology professionals. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 75(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2021.041541

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Estes, R. I., & Ishee, J. H. (2007). Introduction of an emerging technology device through PowerPoint training. Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences & Practice, 5(2), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.46743/1540-580X/2007.1147

 Google Scholar

Farsjø, C., Kluge, A., & Moen, A. (2019). Using a tablet application about nutrition in home care-experiences and perspectives of healthcare professionals. Health & Social Care in the Community, 27(3), 683–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12685

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Feijt, M. A., de Kort, Y. A., Bongers, I. M., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2018). Perceived drivers and barriers to the adoption of eMental health by psychologists: The construction of the levels of adoption of eMental health model. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(4), e153. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9485

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Flynn, N., Kuys, S., Froude, E., & Cooke, D. (2019). Introducing robotic upper limb training into routine clinical practice for stroke survivors: Perceptions of occupational therapists and physiotherapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 66(4), 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12594

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Giesbrecht, E. (2021). Wheelchair skills test outcomes across multiple wheelchair skills training bootcamp cohorts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010021

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gitlow, L., & Sanford, T. (2003). Assistive technology education needs of allied health professionals in a rural state. Journal of Allied Health, 32(1), 46–51.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Glass, K., & Hall, K. (1987). Occupational therapists’ views about the use of robotic aids for people with disabilities. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 41(11), 745–747. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.41.11.745

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Graham, F., Boland, P., Jones, B., Wallace, S., Taylor, W., Desha, L., Maggo, J., McKerchar, C., & Grainger, R. (2022). Stakeholder perspectives of the sociotechnical requirements of a telehealth wheelchair assessment service in Aotearoa/New Zealand: A qualitative analysis. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 69(3), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12790

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guay, M., Levasseur, M., Turgeon-Londeï, S., Dubois, M., & Desrosiers, J. (2013). Exploring support needed by home health aides in choosing bathing equipment: New challenges for occupational therapy collaboration. Work, 46(3), 263–271.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Hall, A., Wilson, C. B., Stanmore, E., & Todd, C. (2017). Implementing monitoring technologies in care homes for people with dementia: A qualitative exploration using normalization process theory. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 72, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.04.008

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hemsley, B., Lee, S., Munro, K., Seedat, N., Bastock, K., & Davidson, B. (2014). Supporting communication for children with cerebral palsy in hospital: Views of community and hospital staff. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 17(3), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2012.741149

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Holthe, T., Halvorsrud, L., Thorstensen, E., Karterud, D., Laliberte Rudman, D., & Lund, A. (2020). Community health care workers’ experiences on enacting policy on technology with citizens with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 13, 447–458. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S246180

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hughes, A. M., Burridge, J. H., Demain, S. H., Ellis-Hill, C., Meagher, C., Tedesco-Triccas, L., Turk, R., & Swain, I. (2014). Translation of evidence-based assistive technologies into stroke rehabilitation: Users’ perceptions of the barriers and opportunities. BMC Health Services Research, 14(1), 124. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-124

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huisman, C., & Kort, H. (2019). Two-year use of care robot zora in Dutch nursing homes: An evaluation study. Healthcare (Basel), 7(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7010031

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Jans, L. H., & Scherer, M. J. (2006). Assistive technology training: Diverse audiences and multidisciplinary content. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1(1–2), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280500167290

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Jarvis, F., Clemson, L. M., & Mackenzie, L. (2017). Technology for dementia: Attitudes and practices of occupational therapists in providing assistive technology for way finding. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 12(4), 373–377. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2016.1173729

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Karlsson, P., Johnston, C., & Barker, K. (2018). Influences on students’ assistive technology use at school: The views of classroom teachers, allied health professionals, students with cerebral palsy and their parents. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 13(8), 763–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.1373307

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Leite, E. S., Pimenta, C. J. L., Costa, M. S., Oliveira, F. B., Moreira, M. A. S. P., & Silva, A. O. (2018). Assistive technology and active aging according to professionals working in community groups. Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem Da USP, 13(52), e03355. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1980-220x2017030903355

 Google Scholar

Liang, H. F., Wu, K. M., Weng, C. H., & Hsieh, H. W. (2019). Nurses’ views on the potential use of robots in the pediatric unit. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 47, e58–e64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2019.04.027

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Long, T. M., & Perry, D. F. (2008). Pediatric physical therapists’ perceptions of their training in assistive technology. Physical Therapy, 88(5), 629–639. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20060356

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Long, T. M., Woolverton, M., Perry, D. F., & Thomas, M. J. (2007). Training needs of pediatric occupational therapists in assistive technology. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(3), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.61.3.345

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Magnusson, L. (2019). Professionals’ perspectives of prosthetic and orthotic services in Tanzania, Malawi, Sierra Leone and Pakistan. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 43(5), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364619863617

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Magnusson, L., & Ramstrand, N. (2009). Prosthetist/Orthotist educational experience & professional development in Pakistan. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 4(6), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483100903024634

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Martinez, R. N., Etingen, B., French, D. D., Vallette, M. A., Bidassie, B., Cozart, H. T., & Weaver, F. M. (2020). An ecological perspective on implementing environmental control units for veterans with spinal cord injuries and disorders. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 15(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2018.1527956

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marvin, L. A., Montano, J. J., Fusco, L. M., & Gould, E. P. (2003). Speech-language pathologists’ perceptions of their training and experience in using alternative and augmentative communication. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 30, 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_30_S_76

 Google Scholar

Matthews, R. (2001). A survey to identify therapists’ high-tech AAC knowledge, application and training. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 36(s1), 64–69. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682820109177860

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

McGrath, C., Ellis, M., Harney Levine, S., Wright, D., Williams, E. A., Hwang, F., & Astell, A. (2017). Investigating the enabling factors influencing occupational therapists’ adoption of assisted living technology. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 80(11), 668–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022617711669

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Newton, L., Dickinson, C., Gibson, G., Brittain, K., & Robinson, L. (2016). Exploring the views of GPs, people with dementia and their carers on assistive technology: A qualitative study. British Medical Journal Open, 6(5), e011132. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011132

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Norwood-Chapman, L., & Burchfield, S. B. (2000). Nursing home personnel knowledge and attitudes about hearing loss and hearing aids. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 20(2), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1300/J021v20n02_04

 Google Scholar

Orton, M. (2008). Factors that may be considered by occupational therapists during the assessment of clients for assistive technology and whether it permeates through to the eventual prescription. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 2(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/17549450200800003

 Google Scholar

Pampoulou, E., Theodorou, E., & Petinou, K. (2018). The use of augmentative and alternative communication in Cyprus: Findings from a preliminary survey. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 34(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659018755523

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Papadopoulos, I., Ali, S., Papadopoulos, C., Castro, N., Faulkes, N., & Koulouglioti, C. (2022). A qualitative exploration of care homes workers’ views and training needs in relation to the use of socially assistive humanoid robots in their workplace. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 17(3), e12432. https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12432

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rasouli, O., Kvam, L., Husby, V. S., Røstad, M., & Witsø, A. E. (2021). Understanding the possibilities and limitations of assistive technology in health and welfare services for people with intellectual disabilities, staff perspectives. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 17, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2021.1963856

 Google Scholar

Rathiram, V., Neilson, L. O., Syed Kassim, A., Mokone, W. T., & Green, C. C. (2022). Communication experiences of healthcare students whilst managing adults with communication disorders. The South African Journal of Communication Disorders, 69(1), e1–e9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajcd.v69i1.870

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sax, C. L. (2002). Assistive technology education: An online model for rehabilitation professionals. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1–3), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280110066802

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Somerville, N. J., Wilson, D. J., Shanfield, K. J., & Mack, W. (1990). A survey of the assistive technology training needs of occupational therapists. Assistive Technology, 2(2), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.1990.10132149

 Google Scholar

Taherian, S., & Davies, C. (2018). Multiple stakeholder perceptions of assistive technology for individuals with cerebral palsy in New Zealand. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 13(7), 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.1369585

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Toro-Hernández, M. L., Alvarez, L., Vargas-Chaparro, M. C., & Goldberg, M. (2020). Final year students’ knowledge on basic manual wheelchair provision: The state of occupational therapy programs in Colombia. Occupational Therapy International, 2020, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3025456

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Verdonck, M., McCormack, C., & Chard, G. (2011). Irish occupational therapists’ views of electronic assistive technology. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(4), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.4276/030802211X13021048723291

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Weakley, A., Tam, J. W., Van Son, C., & Schmitter-Edgecombe, M. (2019). Effectiveness of a video-based aging services technology education program for health care professionals. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 40(3), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2017.1281805

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

White, E. (2003). Impact of training for wheelchair service specialists. British Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 10(2), 60–63. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjtr.2003.10.2.13572

 Google Scholar

Wormnæs, S., & Malek, Y. A. (2004). Egyptian speech therapists want more knowledge about augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610310001629571

 Google Scholar

Worobey, L. A., Kirby, R. L., Cowan, R. E., Dyson-Hudson, T. A., Shea, M., Heinemann, A. W., Pedersen, J. P., Hibbs, R., & Boninger, M. L. (2022). Using remote learning to teach clinicians manual wheelchair skills: A cohort study with pre- vs post-training comparisons. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 17(7), 752–759. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1804633

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wright, L., Meredith, P., & Bennett, S. (2022). Sensory approaches in psychiatric units: Patterns and influences of use in one Australian health region. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 69(5), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12813

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar