CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 141Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesTechnology Use by Older AdultsUsability and User Interface Design

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The experiences, needs and barriers of people with impairments related to usability and accessibility of digital health solutions, levels of involvement in the design process and strategies for participatory and universal design: a scoping review

Open access
Henni, Silje Havrevold, Maurud, Sigurd, Fuglerud, Kristin Skeide, Moen, Anne·2022·BMC Public Health
DOI 10.1186/s12889-021-12393-1PMC PMC8734131
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: Globally, the number of digital health solutions is increasing, but they are not always designed with access and utilisation for people with impairments in mind. Development efforts have often not included the voice and requirements of people with impairments, who make up 15% of the world’s population, despite the fact that this can help ensure broad access and utilisation. Little attention to and limited inclusion of people with impairments in the development of digital health solutions results in continued and reinforced inequalities in health services provision for people with impairments. This review investigates the needs and barriers of people with impairments related to use of digital health solutions and strategies to foster user participation, access and utilisation of digital health solutions. Methods: This scoping review, based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual, had five phases: 1) identification of aim and research questions, 2) literature search in five databases (April/May 2020), 3) literature screening based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 4) data extraction, and (5) reporting results. Results: The literature search resulted in 5968 sources, of which 25 met our inclusion criteria. People with impairments appreciate digital health solutions that are designed to meet their specific impairment-related challenges. The reported needs and barriers related to technological design varied depending on the individuals’ challenges. The literature reported different types of participatory co-design strategies to foster access and utilisation of digital health solutions. Conclusion: This scoping review support needs for increased awareness among developers to design solutions that meet people’s needs, contexts and states of health. By applying universal design as a strategy and including people with different types of impairments, starting in the idea creation phase of digital health solutions and throughout the development, developers can design solutions with better accessibility. Digital health solutions that are accessible and usable have a tremendous opportunity to foster health equity and achieve health promotion, prevention and self-care. This in turn can contribute to closing the gap between different population groups, reduce disparities and get the most from available healthcare services.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12889-021-12393-1

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 PRISMA Flow Diagram
Fig. 1 PRISMA Flow DiagramCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. World Health Organization. From innovation to implementation: eHealth in the who European region: World Health Organization: Regional Office for Europe; 2016.
  2. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF: world health Organization; 2001.
  3. De Oliveira GAA, De Bettio RW, Freire AP. Accessibility of the smart home for users with visual disabilities: An evaluation of open source mobile applications for home automation, vol. 2016: Dept. of Computer Science, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras MG, Brazil: Association for Computing Machinery; 2016.
  4. Malu M, Findlater L. Toward accessible health and fitness tracking for people with mobility impairments. In: 10th EAI international conference on pervasive computing Technologies for Healthcare; 2016. Cancun: ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering; 2016.
  5. Lazar J, Woglom C, Chung J, Schwartz A, Hsieh YG, Moore R, et al. Co-design process of a smart phone app to help people with Down syndrome manage their nutritional habits. J Usability Stud. 2018;13(2):73–93.
  6. Fuglerud KS. Inclusive design of ICT: the challenge of diversity: University of Oslo, Faculty of Humanitites; 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–141 of 141

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Henni, S. H., Maurud, S., Fuglerud, K. S., & Moen, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Norwegian Computing Center (NO)
Corresponding author
Henni, Silje Havrevold
ORCID
Venue
BMC Public Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-01-06
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
35-35
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12889-021-12393-1
PMC
PMC8734131
OpenAlex
W4205132659
Cited by
141
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 6
FWCI
6.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Universitetet i Oslo
  • Norges Forskningsråd (rcn-foriss-286854)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
digital health solutions, people with impairments, accessibility, usability, universal design, participatory design, co-design, user involvement in design, health equity, health disparities, health promotion
MeSH terms
Universal Design, Humans

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