Assistive technology needs, access and coverage, and related barriers and facilitators in the WHO European region: a scoping review

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map showing the 53 countries in the World Health Organization European Region.

World Health Organisation European Region countries.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the publications of the scoping review.

	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Population	People who need assistive technology
Concept	Assistive technology that can be assigned to one or several of the following six functional categories (vision, hearing, mobility, cognition, communication and self-care)	Assistive technology that falls outside of the six functional domains defined Rehabilitation technologies and other therapeutic technologies Implantable devices
Context	Publications from any location within the WHO European Region Publications in English, German or for which experts provided a translation Publication year 2010 and onwards Publication with an accessible abstract

Figure 2. Flow chart depicting the number of publications identified, screened, assessed for eligibility and included at each stage of the selection process, according to the PRISMA guidelines [22].

PRISMA flow chart describing the process of identifying and screening publications on assistive technology use in the World Health Organisation European Region. 7, 656 records were identified from databases, and 541 duplicates were removed. 7,115 records were screened and 6,821 were excluded. 276 records were retrieved and assessed for eligibility; 214 were excluded. The remaining 62 were included with the 41 eligible reports identified and retrieved using the suggested publications from experts.

Table 2. Summary of barriers and facilitators identified from included publications organised across the three themes of access, affordability and acceptability.

Theme	Barriers	Facilitators
Access	AT providers lack of knowledge Scarce evidence of positive outcomes of AT Inadequate assessment procedures High turnout of AT staff Fragmented and bureaucratic systems Lack of information about AT for users Procurement difficulties Lack of standards and guidelines for AT	Appropriate training for AT providers Coordination between AT services Single point-of-access for AT services Availability of relevant information for users Formulation of national/international standards and procurement guidelines for AT
Affordability	High financial cost of AT Inability to expense AT through private insurance or public welfare Maintenance and repair cost for AP	Decreased financial cost of AT Large scale government procurement processes Long-term loaning schemes Support and provision of AT from nongovernmental organisations
Acceptability	Fear of stigmatisation Inappropriate design and fit of AP Previous negative AP experiences Lack of interest and awareness of AT benefits	Ability to trial different APs Positive portrayal of AP users Access to psychological and advocacy support for users

Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–146.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar