Cited by 49Assistive Technology in Communication and MobilityOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesDigital Accessibility for Disabilities

Smartphone usage among people living with severe visual impairment and blindness

Abraham, Carl Halladay, Boadi-Kusi, Bert, Morny, Enyam Komla Amewuho, Agyekum, Prince·2022·Assistive Technology

Abstract

Low vision care and rehabilitation is often limited by access to assistive devices, especially in low-resourced countries, due to their high cost and unavailability. Smartphones have the potential to serve as an alternative assistive device for people living with severe visual impairment and blindness (SVIB). This study aims to investigate the use of smartphones among people living with SVIB. The study was a cross-sectional study of 166 people living with SVIB in a low resourced setting. The participants were recruited from two tertiary institutions and four eye care facilities. A questionnaire was administered to all respondents and for those who could not read prints they were read out to them and their responses recorded. The majority of respondents (n = 88, 53.1%) either had no phone or used a basic phone. The prevalence of smartphone usage among people living with SVIB was found to be 46.90% (n = 78). Most respondents use their smartphones to interact on social media [n = 75 (96%)] and web browsing [n = 69,92%]. The most frequently demanded [n = 22 (44%)] smartphone functionality by the respondents was the image and color description feature. Most participants were unaware that 90% of their functionality demands already existed and were compatible with current smartphones. A significant number of people living with SVIB in this study used smartphones; however, most users are unaware of its full functionality and assistive capabilities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10400435.2021.1907485

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abraham, C. H., Boadi-Kusi, B., Morny, E. K. A., & Agyekum, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Cape Coast (GH)
  • Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana
Corresponding author
Abraham, Carl Halladay
Venue
Assistive Technology
Published
2021-05-03
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
611-618
ISSN
  • 1040-0435 (ISSN-L)
  • 1949-3614
OpenAlex
W3137547366
Cited by
49
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2
FWCI
15.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Assistive Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
Keywords
smartphone use, severe visual impairment, blindness, low vision rehabilitation, social media use, web browsing, resource-limited settings
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Blindness, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Vision Disorders, Vision, Low

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review