Use of Assistive Technology for Persons with Psychosocial Disability: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Assistive technology (AT) refers to assistive products (AP) and associated systems and services that are relevant for function, independence, well-being, and quality of life for individuals with disabilities. There is a high unmet need for AT for persons with disabilities and this is worse for persons with cognitive and mental or psychosocial disabilities (PDs). Further, information and knowledge on AT for PDs is limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to explore the pattern of AT use among persons with PDs and its associated socioeconomic and health benefits. METHODS: The review was reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), and we conducted systematic searches in the 4 databases: PubMed, Embase.com, APA PsycInfo (Ebsco), and Web of Science (Core Collection) with the following index terms: "Assistive Technology," "Self-Help Devices," "Quality of Life," "Activities of Daily Living," "Mental Disorders." We included only AT individuals with PDs can independently use without reliance on a provider. Identified papers were exported to EndNote (Clarivate) and we undertook a narrative synthesis of the included studies. RESULTS: In total, 5 studies were included in the review which reported use of different AT for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety disorders. The APs described in the included studies are Palm tungsten T3 handheld computer, MOBUS, personal digital assistant, automated pill cap, weighted chain blankets, and smartphone function. All the AT products identified in the studies were found to be easily usable by individuals with PDs. The APs reported in the included studies have broad impact and influence on social function, productivity, and treatment or management. The studies were heterogeneous and were all conducted in high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Our study contributes to and strengthens existing evidence on the relevance of AT for PDs and its potential to support socioeconomic participation and health. Although AT has the potential to improve function and participation for individuals with PDs; this review highlights that research on the subject is limited. Further research and health policy changes are needed to improve research and AT service provision for individuals with PDs especially in low-income settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022343735; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=343735.

Salivation in Parkinson's disease: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to provide an overview of the available literature that includes both objective assessments (namely hypersalivation and hyposalivation) and the subjective experience (namely xerostomia and drooling) of salivary problems in patients with Parkinson's disease. BACKGROUND: In patients with Parkinson's disease, there may be complaints of salivary problems such as xerostomia or drooling. This can have consequences for their oral health and quality of life. To date, systematic reviews have focused on drooling only. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search in 4 databases was performed up to 12 February 2021. Two researchers independently assessed studies for eligibility. RESULTS: In total, 63 studies were included. The prevalence of self-reported xerostomia ranged from 49% to 77%, and that of self-reported drooling ranged from 5% to 80%. Ten articles reported a significantly lower mean salivary flow in patients with Parkinson's disease than in controls. None of the articles with both a control group and a patient group reported a significantly higher salivary flow in patients with Parkinson's disease. When questioned about subjective salivary problems, a significantly higher prevalence of both xerostomia (7 studies) and drooling (14 studies) was found in patients with Parkinson's disease than in controls. Patients with Parkinson's disease have a lower salivary flow rate and higher prevalence of both xerostomia and drooling than controls. CONCLUSION: The complexity of salivary problems present in patients with Parkinson's disease necessitates a multidisciplinary approach in order to avoid mutually counteracting treatments from different healthcare professionals.

Duration of Cast Immobilization in Distal Radial Fractures: A Systematic Review.

Objective The duration of immobilization in distal radial fractures is disputed in the current literature. There are still no long-term superior outcomes of operative treatment in comparison to nonoperative treatment. A systematic review was initiated to assess the clinical controversy on the duration of the immobilization period for nonoperatively treated distal radial fractures. Materials and Methods A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Wiley/Cochrane Library databases and a manual reference check of the identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses was executed. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that compared two periods of immobilization, with reported functional, patient-reported, and radiological outcomes. Two reviewers independently agreed on eligibility, and assessed methodological quality and extracted outcome data. Results The initial search yielded 3.384 studies. Twelve trials, with 1063 patients, were included in this systematic review. Grip strength and patient-reported outcome were better in patients treated by a shorter period of immobilization. There was no difference in pain, range of motion, or radiological outcome between different periods of immobilization. Owing to heterogeneity of studies, data were unsuitable for pooling. Conclusion Included studies showed that there might be a preference for a shorter period of immobilization in nonoperatively treated distal radius fractures. Therefore, shortening the period of immobilization in distal radial fractures to a maximum of three weeks should be considered. Future research should include homogeneous groups of patients to draw valid conclusions on the appropriate period of immobilization for nonoperatively treated distal radial fractures. Level of Evidence This is a Level II study. Systematic Review Registration Number PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018085524.