eprintid: 10141189 rev_number: 14 eprint_status: archive userid: 608 dir: disk0/10/14/11/89 datestamp: 2022-01-05 14:45:50 lastmod: 2022-01-07 23:50:06 status_changed: 2022-01-05 14:45:50 type: article metadata_visibility: show creators_name: Danemayer, J creators_name: Boggs, D creators_name: Polack, S creators_name: Smith, EM creators_name: Ramos, VD creators_name: Battistella, LR creators_name: Holloway, C title: Measuring assistive technology supply and demand: A scoping review ispublished: pub divisions: UCL divisions: B04 divisions: C05 divisions: F48 keywords: Rehabilitation, assessment, auditory impairment, mobility, outcomes, service delivery, visual impairment, VISION IMPAIRMENT, DEVICE USE, SUBSTITUTABILITY, BLINDNESS note: © 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. 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. date: 2021-12-01 date_type: published publisher: TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC official_url: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2021.1957039 oa_status: green full_text_type: pub language: eng primo: open primo_central: open_green verified: verified_manual elements_id: 1912517 doi: 10.1080/10400435.2021.1957039 lyricists_name: Danemayer, Jamie lyricists_name: Holloway, Catherine lyricists_id: JMEIK95 lyricists_id: CSHOL54 actors_name: Barczynska, Patrycja actors_id: PBARC91 actors_role: owner full_text_status: public publication: Assistive Technology volume: 33 pagerange: 35-49 pages: 15 citation: Danemayer, J; Boggs, D; Polack, S; Smith, EM; Ramos, VD; Battistella, LR; Holloway, C; (2021) Measuring assistive technology supply and demand: A scoping review. Assistive Technology , 33 pp. 35-49. 10.1080/10400435.2021.1957039 <https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2021.1957039>. Green open access document_url: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10141189/1/Holloway_10400435.2021.1957039.pdf