AbstractBackground:Accessibility is acknowledged as a key to inclusion in the Convention of Rights for People with Disabilities. An inaccessible design can result in exclusion from eHealth and cause disability among people who have impairments.

Objective:This scoping literature review aimed to investigate how eHealth services have been developed and evaluated regarding accessibility for people with impairments.

Methods:In line with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework for scoping studies and using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a search in 4 databases (PubMed, Scopus, IEEE, and Web of Science) in October 2020 and an update of the search in June 2022. The search strategy was structured according to the PICO model as follows: Population/Problem, digital accessibility for users with impairment; Intervention, health care delivered by any digital solution; Comparison, not applicable; Outcome, use of and adherence to (1) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), (2) other accessibility guidelines, and (3) other means, for designing or evaluating accessibility in eHealth services. A Boolean search was conducted by combining terms related to accessibility and eHealth. All authors participated in screening abstracts according to the eligibility criteria. Each publication, containing a potentially relevant abstract, was read (full text) and assessed for eligibility by 2 authors independently and pairwise. Publications deemed eligible were read by all authors and discussed for consensus.

Results:A total of 8643 publications were identified. After abstract screening, 131 publications remained for full-text reading. Of those, 116 publications were excluded as they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Fifteen publications involving studies of 12 eHealth services were included in the study. Of the 15 publications, 2 provided a definition of accessibility, 5 provided an explanation of accessibility, and 8 did not provide any explanation. Five publications used the WCAG to evaluate accessibility when developing eHealth services. One publication used International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 29138, ISO 2941, and ISO/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 30071-1 standards together with the Spanish Association for Standardization (UNE) 139803 standard. Eleven publications used other means to address accessibility, including text-level grading; literature review about accessibility; user tests, focus groups, interviews, and design workshops with target groups of patients, relatives, and health care professionals; and comparative analysis of existing technical solutions to provide information about useful requirements.

Conclusions:Although a clear definition of accessibility can enhance operationalization and thus measurability when evaluating accessibility in eHealth services, accessibility was insufficiently defined in most of the included studies. Further, accessibility guidelines and standards were used to a very limited extent in the development and evaluation of eHealth services. Guidelines for developing complex interventions that include guidance for accessibility are motivated to ensure that accessibility will be considered systematically in eHealth services.

The Web Accessibility Directive (WAD) is part of the European Union’s work for digital inclusion. The WAD obligates that public sector bodies’ websites meet accessibility standards and provide an accessibility statement on the website informing about inaccessible content, and a feedback mechanism for reporting accessibility issues or requesting inaccessible content in an accessible format. The objective of this study was to evaluate how healthcare providers in Sweden have applied accessibility statements on their websites as regulated by law. A descriptive study using a mixed methods approach was conducted, by quantitative descriptive data analysis of the healthcare providers’ accessibility statements compliance to requirements and qualitative data analysis of the written information provided in the accessibility statement. All but one of the 37 evaluated healthcare providers published an accessibility statement. None of the healthcare providers fully met the requirements for accessibility statements, and no one complied with the intention of the law, i.e. to provide accessible health information and eHealth services. There was no or minor progress between the first and the latest published accessibility statement. The possibility to declare no or partial compliance with the law, or claim disproportionate burden, and the lack of enforcement procedures, risk producing symbolic actions e.g., publishing accessibility statements without intention to abide by the law. We suggest that the directives for accessibility statements should be advanced regarding comprehensiveness, understandability, and usefulness. It is suggested that the assessment protocol developed for this study may be used for future evaluations of accessibility statements.

Conversational agents are increasingly being introduced in healthcare to enhance access to healthcare and address limited healthcare resources. The aim of this study was to explore experiences of a conversational agent for symptom checking and triage tool assessing the urgency and appropriate level of care implemented in public healthcare from a cognitive accessibility perspective.With a Participatory Action Research approach this study includes: 1) A Participatory Cognitive Barrier Walkthrough in workshops with people with cognitive impairment (n=7), product owner representatives (n=4), and researchers (n=5), followed by a workshop for improvement suggestions; 2) A paired interview with healthcare system specialists (n=2).The data from the study was analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, resulting in five themes: ‘The design of the eHealth service created expectations that were not met during interaction; ‘The eHealth service uses a difficult language’; ‘The eHealth service trigger negative emotions and reactions’; ‘The layout and graphic design of the eHealth service is difficult and sometimes misleading’; and ‘The eHealth service lack in trustworthiness’. The findings show the importance of including people with lived experience of cognitive impairment, to expose and find solutions for cognitive accessibility issues