Scoping review identifies assistive technologies and barriers in higher education laboratories for students with disabilities, suggesting need for integrated strategies.
Background Assistive technologies (ATs) are essential for supporting the participation of students with disabilities in higher education laboratories. However, evidence on AT in these environments remains fragmented and insufficiently systematized. Objective To map assistive technologies and structural adaptations described in higher education laboratory settings between 2015 and 2025, and to identify associated barriers, facilitators, methodological limitations, and research gaps. Methods A scoping review was conducted following the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (2024) and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ERIC, and BVS. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data from studies published in English or Portuguese that involved students with disabilities in laboratory environments. The protocol was preregistered. Results Of 315 records identified, 20 studies met inclusion criteria, reporting 129 assistive technologies: hardware (56.6%), software (33.3%), structural adaptations (7.8%), and educational resources (2.3%). Common barriers included inaccessible equipment, insufficient faculty training, and limited institutional policies. Facilitators included student participation, accessible materials, and curriculum adaptations. Conclusions Digital AT solutions predominate, particularly for students with visual disabilities. Nonetheless, full inclusion in laboratory settings requires integrated strategies combining technology, inclusive pedagogical practices, and institutional support. Future research should involve students with disabilities in co-design processes and evaluate AT effectiveness in real laboratory contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mesquita et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: