Our aim is to reduce data gaps and increase knowledge sharing in the AT sector, supporting evidence-based decision-making at policy-level and improving access to information for AT entrepreneurs. Currently, 207 population-based studies included in our Systematic Review are represented in this repository using an interactive map map and histogram. You can learn more about measures of population-level AT supply and demand in our Scoping Review and how we collected the data for both reviews in the protocol.
As we develop the portal, functionalities will be added to visualise study characteristics and findings, as well as improve the site's accessibility.
This section contains studies that were conducted at a region level higher than the one selected, without specifying regions at the selected level.
Choose which region level to use when visualising the data.
Note: boundaries for some lower level regions (states, districts) will only show up when zoomed in. When you select these levels the map will be zoomed in automatically.
The table below shows the results after applying the specified filters (including from the search tool above).
Below, you can generate a histogram representing assistive product (AP) access indicators (i.e., quantitative study results ‘indicating’ population-level AP access).
This figure presents the indicator numerator (e.g. total with met need) out of a defined population denominator (e.g. total with an AP) for each study setting that reports that specific indicator type for a specific AP type. These indicators are represented proportionally on the horizontal bars for comparison and they are labelled with the absolute number of individuals for the added context of study sample size.
Please note that not all combinations of AP type, numerator, and denominator were reported in our studies, so not all combinations will yield results.
Indicators are presented here as they were (1) directly reported in the results of studies, meaning their numerators and denominators aligned with our terms and definitions, or (2) indirectly reported, meaning it was possible to calculate them using clearly defined data provided in the articles. Further detail, including definitions for each indicator, are provided in our Systematic Review (specifically Table 1). To facilitate comparison across studies where possible, indicator denominators are categorised as follows:
Some studies reported multiple indicators out of a single denominator (e.g. met and unmet need, out of the total with need), where the indicators add up to equal the denominator (e.g. met need + unmet need = total need). However, other studies only report one of these indicators (e.g. met need, out of the total with need). In these cases, we represent the remainder of the bar as empty if it has not been defined as the complementary indicator by the original study authors (e.g. 'no met need').