Understanding the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Technologies for People With Visual Impairments: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a rapid growth in the literature on the design and evaluation of assistive technologies for people with visual impairments; yet, there is a lack of a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature on the classification of immediate-, short-, medium-, and long-term psychosocial impact of assistive technologies on the quality of life of people with visual impairments. OBJECTIVE: This protocol outlines the methodology for a scoping review aimed at identifying and synthesizing the existing literature on the psychosocial impact of assistive technologies on the quality of life of people with visual impairments. METHODS: The review will include primary research studies published in English between 2019 and 2024 that focus on the psychosocial outcomes of assistive technologies for people with visual impairments. Eligible studies will involve participants with visual impairments, of all ages and across various settings, examining psychological (eg, emotional well-being and self-esteem) and social outcomes (eg, social participation and support). Searches will be conducted across 7 electronic research databases: CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (first 100 records). Studies will undergo screening and selection based on predefined eligibility criteria, with data extraction focusing on publication details, study design, population characteristics, type of assistive technology, and psychosocial impacts. Results will be summarized using descriptive statistics, charts, and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: The database search, conducted in July 2024, identified 1145 records, which will be screened and analyzed in subsequent stages of the review process. This protocol outlines the planned approach for identifying, categorizing, and synthesizing evidence. The study findings are anticipated to be finalized and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal by February 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This study will synthesize the recent body of work on the psychosocial impact of assistive technologies for people with visual impairments and recommendations for researchers and designers interested in this research area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/SK7N8; https://osf.io/4gc5t. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/65056.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.094 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.014 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".