8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Theories, models and frameworks to understand barriers to the provision of mobility-assistive technologies: a scoping review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          There is strong evidence that mobility-assistive technologies improve occupational performance, social participation, educational and employment access and overall quality of life in people with disabilities. However, people with disabilities still face barriers in accessing mobility products and related services. This review aims to summarise and synthesise: (1) theories, models and frameworks that have been used to understand mobility-assistive technology access, (2) determinants of access and (3) gaps in knowledge.

          Design

          A scoping review using the five-step framework by Arksey and O’Malley.

          Data sources

          We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and SCOPUS databases for publications published between 2000 and 2024. We searched for articles published up to 20 March 2024.

          Eligibility criteria

          We included English-published literature in peer-reviewed journals that reported (a) barriers to the provision of mobility-assistive technologies, (b) including at least one theory, model or framework and (c) between 2000 and 2024.

          Data extraction and synthesis

          We extracted the study characteristics, theories, models, framework usage, research recommendations, key findings on mobility-assistive technology barriers and theoretical propositions. We conduct a theoretical synthesis guided by Turner’s approach.

          Results

          We included 18 articles that used 8 theories, models and frameworks, synthesised into 9 propositions. The synthesised theory emphasises that mobility is essential for human flourishing, and that certain health conditions may impose restrictions on mobility. This impact can be alleviated by two direct determinants: (1) the provision of suitable services and (2) their comprehensive provision. Policies and costs influence these services indirectly. Environmental and personal factors also affect the use of these services. Ineffectively addressing these determinants can limit access to mobility-assistive technologies and subsequent disabilities.

          Conclusion

          Our synthetic model describes the logic of providing evidence-based mobility-assistive technologies, and we identify the determinants of access that can act as targets for future work to improve the provision of mobility-assistive technologies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references67

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

            Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2024
                15 May 2024
                : 14
                : 5
                : e080633
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentSchool of Medicine and Population Health , Ringgold_7315The University of Sheffield , Sheffield, UK
                [2 ] departmentCollege of Applied Medical Sciences , Ringgold_48149King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences , Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                [3 ] departmentDepartment of Politics and International Relations , Ringgold_7315University of Sheffield , Sheffield, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Asma Aldawood; aaldawood2@ 123456Sheffield.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4670-4348
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6409-4793
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1055-9871
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3502-2691
                Article
                bmjopen-2023-080633
                10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080633
                11097887
                38749698
                edf4d098-9e25-4cc0-927e-52262b3db8f3
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                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/.

                History
                : 06 October 2023
                : 02 May 2024
                Categories
                Health Services Research
                1506
                1704
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                health services accessibility,self-help devices,disabled persons,review
                Medicine
                health services accessibility, self-help devices, disabled persons, review

                Comments

                Comment on this article