Skip to main content
. 2022 Jan 31;7(1):e007662. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007662

Table 3.

Mobility AP studies and indicators

Study design Cohort Cross-sectional Mixed-methods Secondary cross-sectional Total
 N 0 3 1 11 15
 % 0% 20% 7% 73% 100%
Assessment approaches Clinical only Self-report only Functional only Clinical and self-report Clinical and functional Other combination Secondary sources (multiple)
 N 1 9 0 4 0 1 0 15
 % 7% 60% 0% 27% 0% 7% 0% 100%
Participants (N)* <500 500–999 1000–4999 5000–9999 10 000–24 999 >25 000 Not available
 N 0 1 4 4 2 4 0 15
 % 0% 7% 27% 27% 13% 27% 0% 100%
Age (years) included† Under 15 <15 to 85+ 15 to 85+ 40 to 85+ 60 to 85+ Over 85
 N 1 3 5 0 5 1 15
 % 7% 20% 33% 33% 33% 7% 100%
JBI score <7 7 8 9 10
 N 0 0 3 5 7 15
 % 0% 0% 20% 33% 47% 100%
Mobility functioning difficulty or impairment definition Use of AP Reported activity limitations Clinical threshold Combination
 N 7 6 0 2 15
 % 47% 40% 0% 13% 100%
WHO Region AFR AMR EMR EUR SEAR WPR Global
 N 2 10 0 2 2 1 0 17
 % 12% 59% 0% 12% 12% 6% 0% 100%
AP access indicator Total need Met need Unmet need Undermet need Coverage Use Has AP
 N 3 0 6 1 2 26 4 42
 % 7% 0% 14% 2% 5% 62% 10% 100%
Indicator denominator Total with/using AP Total with need Total with functioning difficulty Total participants Total population
 N 3 2 12 19 6 42
 % 7% 5% 29% 45% 14% 100%

*Participants (N) ranged from 839 to 66 410 for this domain.

†Age group boundaries varied considerably by study; studies are sorted into categories that most closely represent their included age boundaries.

AFR, African Region; AMR, Region of the Americas; AP, assistive product; EMR, Eastern Mediterranean Region; EUR, European Region; JBI, Joanna Briggs Institute; SEAR, Southeast Asian Region; WPR, Western Pacific Region.