An Inclusive Workplace Approach to Disability through Assistive Technologies: A Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis of the Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This review paper covers the time period between 2017 and the middle of 2022. Taking into account that it was submitted in the second half of August, it is first of all necessary to extend the review by at least another year.

The review is based on PRISMA-S, which is an evidence-based minimum set of items for review papers. The introduction to this standard specifically states: Provide an explicit statement of the objectives or issues addressed by the review*. Unfortunately, research questions were omitted, and therefore the systematic review significantly lost its value.

According to the existing report, the scope of acceptable works includes 8 (or 7, according to the discussion section, paragraph 5) systematic reviews. If they have already been included in the selection, it should be pointed out what are the key differences between them and the work that was sent for review.

The language is readable, but proofreading would significantly improve the quality of articulating what is written.

Author Response

Revisions highlighted in pink

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review paper covers the time period between 2017 and the middle of 2022. Taking into account that it was submitted in the second half of August, it is first of all necessary to extend the review by at least another year.

The review is based on PRISMA-S, which is an evidence-based minimum set of items for review papers.

The introduction to this standard specifically states: Provide an explicit statement of the objectives or issues addressed by the review*. Unfortunately, research questions were omitted, and therefore the systematic review significantly lost its value.

According to the existing report, the scope of acceptable works includes 8 (or 7, according to the discussion section, paragraph 5) systematic reviews. If they have already been included in the selection, it should be pointed out what are the key differences between them and the work that was sent for review.

The review itself is quite confusing and difficult to follow. This primarily applies to clumsy tables in which references are duplicated. On the other hand, the discussion of the findings in the tables is rather scarce.   Although the topic of the work is a systematic review and thematic analysis of the literature, the work lacks the critical thinking attitudes that would emphasize how AT can contribute to increasing the employment rate of people with disabilities and, what is even more important, how AT can contribute to the improvement of working conditions.   The conclusion is insufficiently convincing, so the review itself has become trivial and does not show how AT can contribute to increasing the employment rate of people with disabilities. And that was the key goal for which the review was made in the first place.  

Authors: The authors thank the Reviewer for spending valuable time reading our work and for highlighting certain detailed points. We have, in fact, worked on improving some of the indicated paragraphs following your suggestions.

To conclude:

1. The work should be expanded with missing works of recent date;

Authors: We have performed a new analysis by inserting, as suggested, the last year (September 2023). Obviously, both the tables and the specific body of analysis results have been improved not only in appearance but also in content. Typos and erroneously duplicated references have been removed.

2. Instead of a pre-detailed description of the implementation of PRISMA-S and a double presentation of the works, a critical opinion should be profiled

Authors: The three steps of analyzing the results were reworked and deepened. Further details have been included and in the Discussion and Conclusions section, the interesting features of our work have been expanded upon and highlighted.

3. A sustainable approach towards the inclusion of persons with disabilities should be offered.   * http://prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA_2020_checklist.pdf

Authors: An approach to the inclusion of people with disabilities was explored in discussion and conclusions, highlighting the importance of highlighting such a complex issue but one that can offer numerous opportunities.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is readable, but proofreading would significantly improve the quality of articulating what is written.

Authors: We reworded some sentences according to grammar and syntax.

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, this paper offers a very good systematic review of contributions regarding use of AT for persons with disabilities at workplace. I think the analysis is very well done. My only suggestion would be to develop further and present with more clarity the policy reccomendations that can be found as third part of the discussion (lines 111 and following).

Author Response

Revisions highlighted in yellow

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, this paper offers a very good systematic review of contributions regarding use of AT for persons with disabilities at workplace. I think the analysis is very well done. My only suggestion would be to develop further and present with more clarity the policy reccomendations that can be found as third part of the discussion (lines 111 and following).

Authors: We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive feedback to our work and the suggestion we followed. In fact, in the concluding notes of the paper we have even more concisely and precisely included policy recommendations in relation to the focus under consideration.

Reviewer 3 Report

• A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths.
• This paper is an important contribution to an aspect in disability policy and practice that is not given adequate attention, i.e. the role of technologies in the employment of persons with disabilities. The aim of the study was to "provide a systematic review to critically evaluate the current trends of the literature on AT." The main strength is the detailed description of the process adopted for the review of the articles.
• General concept comments
• Weaknesses:
• It is commendable that the authors point out the absence of research from the African continent which in itself is a finding of the study.
• Also that "future studies should recognize the importance of content analysis on full texts and minimize potential biases." This, in my opinion, was the primary weakness in this study.
• Review: 
• This paper's strength is in the detail of description of methods adopted for this research, such that another researcher would easily be able to replicate the study, taking the limitation described above in consideration and the recommendations below.
• Specific comments/recommendations: 
• PwDs: when referring to persons it is advisable not to use acronyms but to write the term in full
• Insert a definition of 'assistive technology' in the introductory part of the paper. This is because the boundary between assistive devices as traditionally categorised and mainstream technology is always more becoming blurred. Therefore it would be good to clarify what the authors will include when they speak of assistive technologies.
• At the start, the authors should include a short paragraph on their understanding of the term 'disability' in this paper. Which model of disability are they adopting as conceptual framework for the study? In the final discussion this can then be taken up again in relation to the findings from their study.
• When introducing the HAAT model, a short paragraph on the disadvantages or critiques of the model is to be included for a more balanced presentation of the model. Justify also why this particular model was chosen over all the other existing models regarding AT.
• Include a clear research question.
•  
•  

Author Response

Revisions highlighted in green

Rev 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors: The authors thank the reviewer for valuable suggestions that have certainly improved our paper.

• PwD: when referring to persons it is advisable not to use acronyms but to write the term in full

Authors: We have eliminated acronym and used full wording.

• Insert a definition of 'assistive technology' in the introductorypart of the paper. This is because the boundary between assistive devices as traditionally categorised and mainstream technology is always more becoming blurred. Therefore it would be good to clarify what the authors will include when they speak of assistive technologies.

Authors: We have included a definition of "assistive technology", as suggested, in the introduction.

• At the start, the authors should include a short paragraph on their understanding of the term 'disability' in this paper. Which model of disability are they adopting as conceptual frameworkfor the study? In the final discussion this can then be taken up again in relation to the findings from their study.

Authors: The definition of the term 'disability' and the conceptual frame of reference have been highlighted most.  In addition, we followed the suggestion to refer to this aspect in discussion in relation to the findings.

• When introducing the HAAT model, a short paragraph on the disadvantages or critiques of the modelis to be included for a more balanced presentation of the model. Justify also why this particular model was chosen over all the other existing models regarding AT.

Authors: An explanation of the HAAT model has been included, focusing on the relevant aspects of the proposed model.

• Include a clear research question.

Authors: A dedicated paragraph on the rationale of our study was included including our specific research questions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper quality has been improved significantly. It deserves to be published in Societies.

Authors should carefully check whether the formatting of the paper is according to Societies' template.

Author Response

We had formatting the formatting of the paper in according to Societies' template.