Use of Assistive Technology for Persons with Psychosocial Disability: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assistive technology (AT) refers to assistive products (AP) and associated systems and services that are relevant for function, independence, well-being, and quality of life for individuals with disabilities. There is a high unmet need for AT for persons with disabilities and this is worse for persons with cognitive and mental or psychosocial disabilities (PDs). Further, information and knowledge on AT for PDs is limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to explore the pattern of AT use among persons with PDs and its associated socioeconomic and health benefits. METHODS: The review was reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), and we conducted systematic searches in the 4 databases: PubMed, Embase.com, APA PsycInfo (Ebsco), and Web of Science (Core Collection) with the following index terms: "Assistive Technology," "Self-Help Devices," "Quality of Life," "Activities of Daily Living," "Mental Disorders." We included only AT individuals with PDs can independently use without reliance on a provider. Identified papers were exported to EndNote (Clarivate) and we undertook a narrative synthesis of the included studies. RESULTS: In total, 5 studies were included in the review which reported use of different AT for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety disorders. The APs described in the included studies are Palm tungsten T3 handheld computer, MOBUS, personal digital assistant, automated pill cap, weighted chain blankets, and smartphone function. All the AT products identified in the studies were found to be easily usable by individuals with PDs. The APs reported in the included studies have broad impact and influence on social function, productivity, and treatment or management. The studies were heterogeneous and were all conducted in high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Our study contributes to and strengthens existing evidence on the relevance of AT for PDs and its potential to support socioeconomic participation and health. Although AT has the potential to improve function and participation for individuals with PDs; this review highlights that research on the subject is limited. Further research and health policy changes are needed to improve research and AT service provision for individuals with PDs especially in low-income settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022343735; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=343735.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".