Raisul Akram, Arjan Buis, Marufa Sultana, Jeremy A Lauer, Alec Morton
{"title":"绘制南亚(南盟)国家的差距图并探讨损伤和残疾的普遍程度:范围界定审查。","authors":"Raisul Akram, Arjan Buis, Marufa Sultana, Jeremy A Lauer, Alec Morton","doi":"10.1080/17483107.2024.2426618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite the considerable health and economic burden of disability in the South Asian (SA) region, there is limited evidence of impairments and disabilities prevalence and the need for Assistive Technologies (ATs). This scoping review aims to synthesise the evidence of the impairments and disabilities in SA countries. This review followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. EBSCOhost, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for original research articles from SA countries. In this study, impairment and disability refer to functional limitations restricting individuals from performing activities, including visual, hearing, speaking, cognitive, mobility, and self-care difficulties. The review included full-text, English-language articles addressing any impairment and disability, without restrictions on publication date. This review identified 105 articles distributed over the six impairment and disability domains: visual, hearing, mobility, self-care, speaking, and cognitive. Most evidence originated from India (50.5%) and focused on visual impairments (53.3%). The review identified that heterogeneity in methodologies, case identification definitions, and study settings contributed to variations in prevalence estimation and restricted the comparability within and across countries. Besides, the uneven distribution of studies across countries suggests varying inclinations of countries toward specific impairment and disability domains. The review identified variations in prevalence due to differences in methodologies, definitions, and contexts. The review also identified the uneven distribution of studies, limited evidence on ATs, reliance on self-reported data, and lack of nationally representative research. Future research should use standardised case identification and evidence-based approaches to enhance comparability and minimise response biases.</p>","PeriodicalId":47806,"journal":{"name":"Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mapping gaps and exploring impairment and disability prevalence in South Asian (SAARC) countries: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Raisul Akram, Arjan Buis, Marufa Sultana, Jeremy A Lauer, Alec Morton\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17483107.2024.2426618\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Despite the considerable health and economic burden of disability in the South Asian (SA) region, there is limited evidence of impairments and disabilities prevalence and the need for Assistive Technologies (ATs). This scoping review aims to synthesise the evidence of the impairments and disabilities in SA countries. This review followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. EBSCOhost, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for original research articles from SA countries. In this study, impairment and disability refer to functional limitations restricting individuals from performing activities, including visual, hearing, speaking, cognitive, mobility, and self-care difficulties. The review included full-text, English-language articles addressing any impairment and disability, without restrictions on publication date. This review identified 105 articles distributed over the six impairment and disability domains: visual, hearing, mobility, self-care, speaking, and cognitive. Most evidence originated from India (50.5%) and focused on visual impairments (53.3%). The review identified that heterogeneity in methodologies, case identification definitions, and study settings contributed to variations in prevalence estimation and restricted the comparability within and across countries. Besides, the uneven distribution of studies across countries suggests varying inclinations of countries toward specific impairment and disability domains. The review identified variations in prevalence due to differences in methodologies, definitions, and contexts. The review also identified the uneven distribution of studies, limited evidence on ATs, reliance on self-reported data, and lack of nationally representative research. Future research should use standardised case identification and evidence-based approaches to enhance comparability and minimise response biases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2024.2426618\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2024.2426618","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
尽管残疾给南亚地区带来了巨大的健康和经济负担,但有关损伤和残疾发生率以及对辅助技术(ATs)需求的证据却十分有限。本次范围界定审查旨在综合南亚国家的损伤和残疾证据。本综述遵循 Arksey 和 O'Malley 的方法框架。我们在 EBSCOhost、EMBASE、PubMed 和 Web of Science 数据库中搜索了南澳大利亚国家的原始研究文章。在本研究中,损伤和残疾指的是限制个人进行活动的功能限制,包括视觉、听觉、语言、认知、行动和自我护理方面的困难。综述包括涉及任何损伤和残疾的全文英文文章,不受出版日期的限制。本次审查共发现 105 篇文章,分布在六个障碍和残疾领域:视觉、听觉、行动、自理、说话和认知。大多数证据来自印度(50.5%),主要集中在视力障碍方面(53.3%)。综述发现,方法、病例识别定义和研究环境的异质性导致了患病率估算的差异,并限制了国家内部和国家之间的可比性。此外,各国的研究分布不均,表明各国对特定损伤和残疾领域的倾向各不相同。综述发现,由于方法、定义和背景的不同,流行率也存在差异。综述还发现了研究分布不均、有关辅助器具的证据有限、对自我报告数据的依赖以及缺乏具有全国代表性的研究等问题。未来的研究应采用标准化的病例识别和循证方法,以提高可比性并尽量减少反应偏差。
Mapping gaps and exploring impairment and disability prevalence in South Asian (SAARC) countries: a scoping review.
Despite the considerable health and economic burden of disability in the South Asian (SA) region, there is limited evidence of impairments and disabilities prevalence and the need for Assistive Technologies (ATs). This scoping review aims to synthesise the evidence of the impairments and disabilities in SA countries. This review followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. EBSCOhost, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for original research articles from SA countries. In this study, impairment and disability refer to functional limitations restricting individuals from performing activities, including visual, hearing, speaking, cognitive, mobility, and self-care difficulties. The review included full-text, English-language articles addressing any impairment and disability, without restrictions on publication date. This review identified 105 articles distributed over the six impairment and disability domains: visual, hearing, mobility, self-care, speaking, and cognitive. Most evidence originated from India (50.5%) and focused on visual impairments (53.3%). The review identified that heterogeneity in methodologies, case identification definitions, and study settings contributed to variations in prevalence estimation and restricted the comparability within and across countries. Besides, the uneven distribution of studies across countries suggests varying inclinations of countries toward specific impairment and disability domains. The review identified variations in prevalence due to differences in methodologies, definitions, and contexts. The review also identified the uneven distribution of studies, limited evidence on ATs, reliance on self-reported data, and lack of nationally representative research. Future research should use standardised case identification and evidence-based approaches to enhance comparability and minimise response biases.