@article{discovery10141189,
         journal = {Assistive Technology},
           title = {Measuring assistive technology supply and demand: A scoping review},
            year = {2021},
       publisher = {TAYLOR \& FRANCIS INC},
           month = {December},
           pages = {35--49},
            note = {{\copyright} 2021 The Author(s). Published by Taylor \& Francis Group, LLC on behalf of the RESNA.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.},
          volume = {33},
        abstract = {The supply of and market demand for assistive products (APs) are complex and influenced by diverse
stakeholders. The methods used to collect AP population-level market data are similarly varied. In this
paper, we review current population-level AP supply and demand estimation methods for five priority APs
and provide recommendations for improving national and global AP market evaluation.
Abstracts resulting from a systematic search were double-screened. Extracted data include WHO world
region, publication year, age-groups, AP domain(s), study method, and individual assessment approach.
497 records were identified. Vision-related APs comprised 65\% (n = 321 studies) of the body of
literature; hearing (n = 59), mobility (n = 24), cognitive (n = 2), and studies measuring multiple domains
(n = 92) were proportionately underrepresented. To assess individual AP need, 4 unique approaches were
identified among 392 abstracts; 45\% (n = 177) used self-report and 84\% (n = 334) used clinical evaluation.
Study methods were categorized among 431 abstracts; Cross-sectional studies (n = 312, 72\%) and
secondary analyses of cross-sectional data (n = 61, 14\%) were most common. Case studies illustrating
all methods are provided.
Employing approaches and methods in the contexts where they are most well-suited to generate
standardized AP indicators will be critical to further develop comparable population-level research
informing supply and demand, ultimately expanding sustainable access to APs.},
          author = {Danemayer, J and Boggs, D and Polack, S and Smith, EM and Ramos, VD and Battistella, LR and Holloway, C},
             url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2021.1957039},
        keywords = {Rehabilitation, assessment, auditory impairment, mobility, outcomes, service delivery, visual impairment, VISION IMPAIRMENT, DEVICE USE, SUBSTITUTABILITY, BLINDNESS}
}