Consumer perspectives on mobility: Implications for neuroprosthesis design

Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 659-669

  Brown Triolo, Denise L ^a,b,c,d   Roach, Mary Joan ^a,b,c,d   Nelson, Kristine ^a,b,c,d   Triolo, Ronald J ^a,b,c,d,e  

^a KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b METROHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c Sumner High School   (United States)

^d CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e LOUIS STOKES CLEVELAND VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Consumer issues; Functional electrical stimulation (FES); Mobility; Participatory research; Spinal cord injury (SCI)

Indexed keywords

HEALTH RISKS; PROSTHETICS;

SPINAL CORD;

PATIENT REHABILITATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONSUMER; COST CONTROL; DATA BASE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PARAPLEGIA; PATIENT MOBILITY; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS; PUBLIC OPINION; QUALITY CONTROL; SPINAL CORD INJURY; TECHNOLOGY; TELEPHONE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WALKING;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SELF-HELP DEVICES; SPINAL CORD INJURIES; WALKING;

EID: 0036873880     PISSN: 07487711     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Berkowitz M, Harvey C, Greene CG, Wilson SE. The economic consequences of traumatic spinal cord injury. New York: Demos Press; 1992.
2. Heinemann A, Magiera-Planey R, Schiro-Geist C, Gimenes G. Mobility for persons with spinal cord injuries: An evaluation of two systems. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1987;68:90-93.
3. Hanson RW, Franklin MR. Sexual loss in relation to other functional losses for spinal cord injured males. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1976;57:291-93.
4. Stensman R. Severely mobility-disabled people assess the quality of their lives. Scand J Rehabil Med 1985;17:87-99.
5. Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technol 1993;5:36-45.
6. Rabishong E. Expectations of the patients concerning FES. In: Pedotti A, Ferrarin M, editors. Restoration of walking for paraplegics. Recent advancements and trends. Burke (VT): IOS Press; 1990. p. 359-62.
7. Rubin SE, Rice JM. Quality and relevance of rehabilitation research: A critique and recommendations. Rehabil Couns Bull 1986;30:33-42.
8. Corbet C. Consumer involvement in research: Inclusion and impact. In: Spinal Cord Injury: Clinical outcomes from the model systems. Gaithersburg (MD): Aspen; 1995. p. 40-58.
9. Walker ML. Transforming disability research. Rehabil Network 1995;38:12-17.
10. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Federal Register. Notice of proposed long-range plan for fiscal years 1999-2004. 1998; Part III. Notice 63. p. 206.
11. Cushman LA, Scherer MJ. Measuring the relationship of assistive technology use, functional status over time, and consumer-therapist perceptions of AT's. Assistive Technol 1996;8:103-9.
12. Stineman MG, Maislin G, Nosek M, Fiedler R, Granger CV. Comparing consumer and clinician values for alternative functional states: Application of a new feature trade-off consensus building tool. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:1522-29.
13. Balcazar FE, Keys CB, Kaplan DL, Suarez-Balcazar Y. Participatory action research and people with disabilities: Principles and challenges. Can J Rehabil 1998;12:105-12.
14. Brown-Triolo DL, Triolo RJ, Peckham PH. Mobility issues and priorities in persons with SCI: A qualitative investigation. In: Popovic D, editor. Proceedings of the Second Annual IFESS Conference (IFESS '97) and Neural Prosthesis: Motor Systems 5 (NP '97). 1997 August 16-21; Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. La Canada Flintridge (CA): International FES Society, Inc.; 1997. p. 184-86.
15. Brown-Triolo DL, Triolo RJ, Roach MJ, Nelson K, Peckham PH. Mobility issues in paraplegia. J Spinal Cord Med 1999;22(1):29.
16. Weisberg HF, Krosnick JA, Bowen BD. An introduction to survey research, polling and data analysis. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1996.
17. University of Alabama at Birmingham. NSCISC facts and figures at a glance. 1997 Aug.
18. Brown DL. Personal implications of functional electrical stimulation standing for older adolescents with spinal cord injuries. Technol Disabil 1996;5(3-4):295-311.
19. Scherer MJ. Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disabil Rehabil 1996;18:439-48.
20. Treischmann RB. Spinal cord injuries: Psychological social and vocational rehabilitation. 2nd ed. New York: Demos; 1988.
21. Teeter JO, Brown-Triolo DL. Functional electrical stimulation (FES): Here today and tomorrow. Parapl News 1997;51(6):44-49.
22. DeJong G, Branch LG, Corcoran PJ. Independent living outcomes in spinal cord injury: Multivariate analyses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1984;65:66-73.