Mapping of quality assessment criteria for assistive product-related services: a scoping review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-0190.v32i4a246712Keywords:
Self-Help Devices, Persons with Disabilities, Health Care Quality, Access, and EvaluationAbstract
Assistive products, such as digital assistive technology, wheelchairs, hearing aids, prostheses, orthoses, and eyeglasses, aim to improve the quality of life and independence of people with disabilities. However, the effectiveness of these products can be compromised by lack of accessibility, inadequate customization, insufficient maintenance and repair support, and the absence of user feedback. Objective: To identify in the scientific literature the quality criteria for assistive product-related services. Method: A rapid scoping review was conducted to answer "What are the quality assessment criteria for services related to selected priority assistive products?" A research protocol was developed and validated by the External Expert Committee. Searches were performed in the scientific literature databases PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, using health descriptors related to assistive products. The selection and extraction process of the retrieved studies was carried out independently and in duplicate. Results: From 2,972 records retrieved from the searches, 8 publications were included, with 54 indicators divided into four quality criteria: service (service management, environment, professional competence), care (service organization), assistance (users' physical function, comprehensiveness of care, and quality of life), and product (quality and adherence to devices). Conclusion: Although there is a variety of quality assessment criteria, the findings showed that most instruments used did not present a complete recommendation for the indicator, as detailed descriptions were lacking. It is observed that the assessment of assistive product services is a highly specific topic. In contrast, this rapid scoping review contributes to the identification of indicators that may be prioritized in the future for use in healthcare services related to assistive devices.
Downloads
References
Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS). Lista de Produtos Assistivos Prioritários. Geneva: Organização Mundial da Saúde; 2017 [citado 2024 Set 9]. Disponível em: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/207694/WHO-EMP-PHI-2016.01-por.pdf
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Pessoas com deficiência têm menor acesso à educação, ao trabalho e à renda. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE; 2024 [citado 2024 Set 9]. Disponível em: https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/agencia-noticias/2012-agencia-de-noticias/noticias/37317-pessoas-com-deficiencia-tem-menor-acesso-a-educacao-ao-trabalho-e-a-renda
World Health Organization (WHO). Assistive Technology: Key Facts. Geneva: WHO; 2024 [cited 2024 Sept 9]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/assistive-technology
Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide: JBI; 2024 [cited 2024 Sept 9]. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global
Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil, H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Reviewer's Manual. Adelaide: JBI; 2020 [cited 2025 sept 9]. Available from: https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-73. Doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS). Sobre - Capacitação em Produtos Assistivos. Geneva: OMS; c2024 [citdado 2024 9]. Disponível em: https://www.gate-tap.org/pt/about/
Ouzzani M, Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elma-garmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Brady J, Ho K, Kelley E, Clancy CM. AHRQs National Healthcare Quality and Disparities reports: an ever-expanding road map for improvement. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(3 Pt 1):xi-xxi. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00736.x
Bright T, Wallace S, Kuper H. A Systematic Review of Access to Rehabilitation for People with Disabilities in Low- and Mid-dle-Income Countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(10):2165. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102165
Luo J, Gama Z, Gesang D, Liu Q, Zhu Y, Yang L, et al. Real-life experience of accepting assistive device services for Tibet-ans with dysfunction: A qualitative study. Int J Nurs Sci. 2022;10(1):104-10. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2022.12.005
Ronca E, Scheel-Sailer A, Koch HG, Essig S, Brach M, Münzel N, et al. Satisfaction with access and quality of healthcare services for people with spinal cord injury living in the community. J Spinal Cord Med. 2020;43(1):111-121. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2018
Zumsteg JM, Ennis SK, Jaffe KM, Mangione-Smith R, Mac-Kenzie EJ, Rivara FP, et al. Quality of care indicators for the structure and organization of inpatient rehabilitation care of children with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(3):386-93.e1. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.018
Fatone S, Jerousek S, Slater BCS, Deutsch A, LaVela SL, Peterson M, et al. Identifying instruments to assess care quality for individuals with custom ankle foot orthoses: A scoping review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021;102(4):709-34. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.06.029
Dijcks BP, Wessels RD, de Vlieger SL, Post MW. KWAZO, a new instrument to assess the quality of service delivery in assistive technology provision. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28(15):909-14. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280500301527
Heinemann AW, Fatone S, LaVela SL, Slater BCS, Deutsch A, Peterson M, et al. Orthotists' and physical therapists' perspectives on quality of care indicators for persons with custom ankle-foot orthoses. Assist Technol. 2021;33(4):206-216. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2019.1610814
Maximo T, Clift L. Assessing service delivery systems for assitive technology in Brazil using heart study quality indicators. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;217:478-84.
Salatino C, Andrich R, Desideri L. Assistive technology out-come measures: A review. Technology and Disability 2019;31(S172-S173).
Service Delivery Systems for Assistive Technology in Europe – AAATE & EASTIN Position Paper. London: Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe (AAATE), European Assistive Technology Information Net-work (EASTIN); c2012 [cited 2024 sept 9]. Available from: https://aaate.net/wp-con-tent/uploads/sites/12/2016/02/ATServiceDelivery_PositionPaper.pdf
HEART Final Report on Service Delivery. London: European Commission DG XIII Telecommunications, information mar-ket, exploitation of research; TIDE programme Technology Initiative for Disabled and Elderly people; 2012 [cited 2024 sept 9]. Available from: https://portale.siva.it/files/doc/library/a416_1_ATServiceDelivery_HEART_ReportC51.pdf
Wessels RD, De Witte LP. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(6):267-72. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0963828021000031197
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updat-ed guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):89. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Acta Fisiátrica
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
O conteúdo do periódico está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons BY-NC-SA. Esta licença permite que outros remixem, adaptem e criem a partir do seu trabalho para fins não comerciais, desde que atribuam ao autor o devido crédito e que licenciem as novas criações sob termos idênticos.
