Affiliations: [a] National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Injuries and Functional Capacity Unit, Assistive Technology, Helsinki, Finland | [b] Linköping University Hospital, Clinical Department Rehabilitation Medicine, Sweden | [c] Social Insurance Institution, Helsinki, Finland | [d] Danish Centre for Assistive Technology, Department of Research & Development, Århus, Denmark | [x] Danish Centre for Assistive Technology, Department of Research and Development, Århus, Denmark | [y] Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: H. Anttila, National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Injuries and Functional Capacity Unit, Assistive Technology, P.O. Box 30, 00271 Helsinki, Finland. Tel.: +358 20 610 7678; Fax: +358 20 610 8661; E-mail: heidi.anttila@thl.fi.
Abstract: This overview summarizes the available evidence from systematic reviews of outcomes studies on various assistive technologies (AT) for persons with disabilities. Systematic reviews published between January 2000 and April 2010 were identified by comprehensive literature searches. Study selection, data extraction and methodological quality evaluation were done by two authors independently. The quality of evidence was summarized by explicit methods. Types of disabilities, settings, and AT interventions were recorded. Outcomes were mapped according to the Taxonomy of Assistive Technology Device Outcomes. Forty-four systematic reviews were included in this overview. High-quality evidence was found in single AT (positive effects of providing AT in connection with home assessment and hearing aids, no effects of hip protectors) for limited populations (older people at home, people with hearing loss, and older people in institutional care, respectively). Low-quality or unclear evidence was found for the effectiveness of the other evaluated AT interventions. Current gaps in AT outcomes research were identified. Many frequently used devices have not been systematically reviewed. Well-designed outcomes research to inform clinical decision-making is urgently needed. The systematic review methodology seems to be feasible for summarising AT outcomes research, but methodological development for grading and for primary studies is warranted.
Keywords: Self-help devices, assistive technology devices, aids, equipment, evidence, outcome assessment, rehabilitation, health care
