---
title: "Usability and Impact of the WHO TAP eHealth Module on Assistive Product Provision"
id: "medrxiv-13-evaluation-of-an-ehealth-assistive-device-provision-training-tool-a-quasi"
canonical_url: "https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medrxiv-13-evaluation-of-an-ehealth-assistive-device-provision-training-tool-a-quasi"
content_type: "clinical_feed_article"
specialty: "General"
source_name: "medRxiv (Clinical Preprints)"
source_url: "https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.20.26363517v1?rss=1"
published_at: "2026-09-22T12:00:00.000Z"
evidence_level: "Verified Feed"
license: "CC-BY-NC-4.0 / Informational Use"
---
# Usability and Impact of the WHO TAP eHealth Module on Assistive Product Provision
## Provenance & Clinical Metadata
- **Canonical URL:** https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medrxiv-13-evaluation-of-an-ehealth-assistive-device-provision-training-tool-a-quasi
- **Specialty:** [General](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/general.md)
- **Primary Source:** medRxiv (Clinical Preprints)
- **Source URL:** [Original Journal Publication](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.20.26363517v1?rss=1)
- **Published At:** 2026-09-22T12:00:00.000Z
- **Evidence Rating:** Verified Feed
## Executive GIST (TL;DR)
- Study evaluated the World Health Organization's **Training in Assistive Products (TAP)** 'Introduction to Assistive Products' eHealth module using a quasi-experimental pre–post design with health science students. - Participants: 53 enrolled; 33 completed both pre- and post-assessments. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board (H-01-26-12367). - Usability was measured with the **System Usability Scale (SUS)**; the mean score exceeded benchmark values (76.97 ± 9.66), indicating above-average usability and a positive user experience. - Acceptability was assessed using the Technology Acceptance Model and the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability; responses were favourable across domains, with high ratings for ease of use and intervention coherence and comparatively lower burden scores. - Self-efficacy for mobility aid and assistive product provision was measured with an adapted Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy; mean scores increased from 2.32 ± 0.58 pre-module to 4.23 ± 0.36 post-module (p < 0.001), indicating significant gains in confidence. - Data analysis used descriptive statistics and paired-samples t-tests. Data are not publicly available due to ethics but may be requested from the corresponding author. - The study concludes the TAP eHealth module has above-average usability, favourable acceptability, and significantly improves learner self-efficacy in assistive product provision, suggesting potential to strengthen workforce capacity in assistive product services. - The article is a preprint and has not undergone peer review; authors declared no competing interests. - Details on broader external validity, long-term retention, or clinical translation of learning outcomes were not reported in the source.
## Clinical Analysis & Structured Key Points
Evaluation of an eHealth Assistive Device Provision Training Tool: A Quasi-Experimental Study | medRxiv Skip to main content Evaluation of an eHealth Assistive Device Provision Training Tool: A Quasi-Experimental Study Rachel Sudhakar , Jennifer O'Neil , Katrine Sauvé-Schenk doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.20.26363517 Rachel Sudhakar University of Ottawa Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Jennifer O'Neil University of Ottawa Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site For correspondence: joneil{at}uottawa.ca Katrine Sauvé-Schenk University of Ottawa Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Abstract Info/History Metrics Data/Code Preview PDF Abstract Background: Approximately 2.5 billion people require assistive products (APs), yet access remains limited partly because of shortages of trained personnel. eHealth tools may help strengthen workforce capacity and translate evidence into practice. The World Health Organization's Training in Assistive Products (TAP) program is an open-access eHealth tool designed to strengthen AP provision. However, its impact on learner outcomes remains insufficiently evaluated. This study assessed the usability and acceptability of the TAP module and changes in self-efficacy in mobility aid provision. Methods: We conducted a quasi-experimental pre-post study with health science students who completed the WHO TAP "Introduction to Assistive Products" module. We assessed usability using the System Usability Scale, acceptability using the Technology Acceptance Model and Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, and self-efficacy using an adapted version of Bandura's Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and paired-samples t-tests. Results: Of 53 participants, 33 completed both assessments. Usability exceeded established benchmarks (76.97 +/- 9.66), indicating a positive user experience. Acceptability findings demonstrated favourable responses across domains, with high ratings for ease of use and intervention coherence, and comparatively lower burden scores. Mean self-efficacy increased across all competencies from 2.32 +/- 0.58 before the module to 4.23 +/- 0.36 afterward (p < 0.001), reflecting substantial gains in confidence in AP provision. Conclusion: The eHealth TAP module demonstrated above-average usability and favourable acceptability, while significantly improving self-efficacy in AP provision. These findings highlight the potential for eHealth training implementation to strengthen workforce capacity and bridge training gaps in global health. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: The University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board gave ethical approval for this work (approval number H-01-26-12367). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Data Availability Data generated and analyzed during this study are not publicly available due to research ethics considerations but may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license . Back to top Previous Next Posted September 22, 2026. Download PDF Data/Code Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Evaluation of an eHealth Assistive Device Provision Training Tool: A Quasi-Experimental Study Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Evaluation of an eHealth Assistive Device Provision Training Tool: A Quasi-Experimental Study Rachel Sudhakar , Jennifer O'Neil , Katrine Sauvé-Schenk medRxiv 2026.09.20.26363517; doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.20.26363517 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Evaluation of an eHealth Assistive Device Provision Training Tool: A Quasi-Experimental Study Rachel Sudhakar , Jennifer O'Neil , Katrine Sauvé-Schenk medRxiv 2026.09.20.26363517; doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.20.26363517 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Areas All Articles Addiction Medicine (619) Allergy and Immunology (903) Anesthesia (335) Cardiovascular Medicine (4834) Dentistry and Oral Medicine (479) Dermatology (419) Emergency Medicine (651) Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1633) Epidemiology (15981) Forensic Medicine (33) Gastroenterology (1206) Genetic and Genomic Medicine (7068) Geriatric Medicine (734) Health Economics (1067) Health Informatics (5067) Health Policy (1438) Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1776) Hematology (587) HIV/AIDS (1347) Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (16310) Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (1177) Medical Education (672) Medical Ethics (155) Nephrology (727) Neurology (7305) Nursing (370) Nutrition (1087) Obstetrics and Gynecology (1244) Occupational and Environmental Health (1007) Oncology (3622) Ophthalmology (1057) Orthopedics (398) Otolaryngology (458) Pain Medicine (476) Palliative Medicine (140) Pathology (709) Pediatrics (1805) Pharmacology and Therapeutics (739) Primary Care Research (769) Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (5923) Public and Global Health (9776) Radiology and Imaging (2436) Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1456) Respiratory Medicine (1250) Rheumatology (643) Sexual and Reproductive Health (773) Sports Medicine (582) Surgery (783) Toxicology (107) Transplantation (306) Urology (293)
## Related Clinical Research

- [First‑trimester glycolipid and inflammatory markers linked to gestational diabetes risk in rural S](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/bmj-open-11-evaluation-of-the-first-trimester-maternal-glycolipid-profile-on-gestational.md)
- [Key factors for equitable UBI-based health interventions for low-income Black men with chronic ill](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/plos-one-10-key-factors-for-an-equitable-health-intervention-for-black-men-with-low-income.md)
- [Maternal Vitamin D Status and Preeclampsia Risk in Kenyan Pregnant Women: A Matched Case–Control S](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/plos-one-12-maternal-serum-vitamin-d-levels-and-preeclampsia-among-kenyan-pregnant-women-a.md)
- [How visual acuity definitions change estimates of eye‑care need in 12 RAAB surveys](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medrxiv-11-the-hidden-burden-of-eye-care-needs-how-visual-acuity-definitions-change.md)
- [Diagnostic Accuracy of MUAC for Screening Maternal Malnutrition in Eastern India](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medrxiv-4-diagnostic-accuracy-of-mid-upper-arm-circumference-for-screening-maternal.md)

## Navigation
- [← Back to General Feed](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/general.md)
- [← All Clinical Specialties](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed.md)
## Medical & Regulatory Disclaimer

> [!CAUTION]
> MedicHelpline content is structured for research, educational, and professional discovery purposes. It does not constitute individual medical advice, clinical diagnosis, or treatment recommendations.
> Always verify dosing, contraindications, and regulatory alerts against official product labeling and primary regulatory sources before clinical decision-making.