Health education technologies for people with disabilities: scope review.
Danielle Figueiredo Patrício, Alexsandro Silva Coura, Maria do Socorro Alécio Barbosa and 3 others
PMID 42484300WHAT IT FOUND
Across eight studies, accessible courses, sign-language tools, avatars, and exergames were judged valid, feasible, and acceptable for people with disabilities, but there was no robust evidence they improve health or communication outcomes.
Key findings
01The review analysed eight studies of technologies for people with hearing, visual, intellectual, or cognitive disabilities.
02Included studies reported positive validity, accessibility, acceptability, and feasibility, but evidence for clinical efficacy or behavior change was low.
03Technologies and outcomes were too heterogeneous to compare or pool, and no included study used randomized trials or longitudinal follow-up.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Most included studies were small and used convenience samples, so they may not represent all patients with disabilities. Many technologies were judged by experts or tested only for accessibility, not used by patients over time, so acceptability does not prove benefit. The studies covered different disabilities, technologies, and outcomes, so results could not be compared or pooled. The review found no randomized trials or longitudinal follow-up, so it cannot show that the technologies improve health, knowledge, or communication. Most studies were from Brazil, with one from Romania, limiting generalizability to other health systems.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that these technologies improve health, knowledge, or communication outcomes. The review found only feasibility, validity, and acceptability; the included studies lacked control groups, user testing, and effectiveness measures.