Assessing the implementation of user-centred design standards on assistive technology for persons with visual impairments: a systematic review.

The paper assessed how design studies applied user-centred design principles, not whether the resulting assistive technology improved patient function or participation. The paper states that 87.5% (24) of included papers were from high-income countries, four from middle-income countries, and none from low-income countries, so it may not reflect low-income settings. Many included studies had small samples and did not explain participant selection; sample sizes varied from two to 128 participants, only seven articles had more than 12 users, and only one paper reported a sampling strategy for 60 participants. Quality appraisal found that only four papers met all quality criteria, nine met between 3 and 4 criteria, and 11 met between 1 and 2 criteria, so the evidence base was uneven. Some studies used blindfolded sighted participants or combined sighted and visually impaired data, which makes findings for visually impaired users less certain. The search used four databases, and the authors state that some studies may have been missed.

Funding was reported from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Ambizione grant PZOOP1_186035) and Fondation Gelbert (0751-2020). The supplied funding section does not state other conflicts.

Do not read this review as evidence that a specific assistive technology improves outcomes for people with visual impairments. It assessed whether design studies followed user-centred principles, and many included studies had small samples and low quality, so it does not report patient outcomes.