Access to assistive products (APs) remains limited globally, with an estimated 2.5 billion people in need of APs but constrained by shortages of trained personnel. The World Health Organization developed the Training in Assistive Products (TAP) program as an open-access eHealth resource to strengthen workforce capacity and support evidence translation in AP provision. The present study evaluated the usability and acceptability of the TAP "Introduction to Assistive Products" module and measured changes in learners' self-efficacy for mobility aid provision following module completion.
The investigation used a quasi-experimental pre–post design. Health science students completed the WHO TAP module and were assessed before and after the intervention. A total of 53 participants enrolled in the study; 33 participants completed both pre- and post-intervention assessments. The University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board provided ethical approval (approval number H-01-26-12367). The manuscript is presented as a preprint and has not undergone peer review.
Usability of the eHealth module was measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Acceptability was assessed through a combination of constructs from the Technology Acceptance Model and the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, capturing domains such as perceived ease of use, intervention coherence, and burden. Learner confidence and perceived capability in assistive product provision were measured with an adapted version of Bandura's Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy, focused on competencies relevant to mobility aid provision.
Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize responses and paired-samples t-tests to evaluate pre–post changes in self-efficacy. Where reported, mean scores and standard deviations are presented for key outcomes. The study authors reported p-values for inferential comparisons; specific model diagnostics or additional multivariable analyses were not described in the source.
The TAP module's usability exceeded established SUS benchmarks, with a reported mean SUS score of 76.97 (± 9.66), interpreted by the authors as evidence of a positive user experience and above-average usability. Acceptability outcomes were favourable across assessed domains: participants rated the module highly for ease of use and intervention coherence, while burden-related scores were comparatively lower. The source reports that overall acceptability findings demonstrated constructive responses toward implementing the eHealth module in training contexts.
Self-efficacy scores for competencies related to assistive product and mobility aid provision increased substantially after module completion. Mean self-efficacy rose from 2.32 (± 0.58) prior to the module to 4.23 (± 0.36) afterward, and this change was statistically significant (p < 0.001) as assessed by paired-samples t-test. The authors interpret this as meaningful gains in learners' confidence in providing APs following exposure to the TAP eHealth content.
The University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board approved the study (H-01-26-12367), and the authors report that required participant consent procedures were followed. The authors declared no competing interests. Data generated and analyzed in the study are not publicly available because of research ethics considerations; the source indicates data may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Within the limits of a quasi-experimental pre–post design and the participant sample that completed both assessments, the WHO TAP "Introduction to Assistive Products" eHealth module demonstrated above-benchmark usability, favourable acceptability, and significant improvements in learner self-efficacy for assistive product provision. The authors conclude these findings support the potential for eHealth training implementation to strengthen workforce capacity and help address training gaps in global assistive product services.
Notes and reporting limitations
The article is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. The source provides summary outcomes for usability, acceptability, and self-efficacy but does not report longer-term follow-up, objective measures of clinical competence or skill transfer into practice, or detailed participant demographic breakdowns in the abstract. Those details were not reported in the source material provided here.