Participation in community-based activities of daily living: Comparison of a pushrim-activated, power-assisted wheelchair and a power wheelchair

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 198-207

  Giesbrecht, Edward M ^a   Ripat, Jacqueline D ^a   Quanbury, Arthur O ^a   Cooper, Juliette E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Activities of daily living; Community participation; Rehabilitation; Wheelchairs

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANADA; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSUMER; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISABLED PERSON; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POWER SUPPLY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UTILIZATION REVIEW; WALKING DIFFICULTY; WHEELCHAIR;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DISABLED PERSONS; ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLIES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MANITOBA; MIDDLE AGED; MOBILITY LIMITATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; WHEELCHAIRS;

EID: 67650225002     PISSN: 17483107     EISSN: 17483115     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17483100802543205     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Brandt A, Iwarsson S, Stahle A. Older people's use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation. J Rehabil Med 2004;36:70-77.
2. Hoenig H, Landerman LR, Shipp KM, George L. Activity restriction among wheelchair users. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003; 51:1244-1251.
3. Field D. Powered mobility: A literature review illustrating the importance of a multifaceted approach. Assist Technol 1999; 11:20-33.
4. Cook AM, Hussey SM. Assistive technologies: Principles and practice. 2nd ed, St. Louis: Mosby, Inc.; 2002.
5. Buning ME, Schmeler MR. Effects of the transition to powered mobility on occupational performance. Spotlight on technology, Arlington, VA: RESNA Press; 1999.
6. Best KL, Kirby RL, Smith C, MacLeod DA. Comparison between performance with a pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair and a manual wheelchair on the Wheelchair Skills Test. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28:213-220.
7. Cooper RA, Corfman TA, Fitzgerald SG, Boninger ML, Spaeth DM, Ammer W, Arva J. Performance assessment of a pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair control system. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 2002;10:121-126.
8. Algood SD, Cooper RA, Fitzgerald SG, Cooper R, Boninger ML. Impact of a pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair on the metabolic demands, stroke frequency, and range of motion among subjects with tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:1865-1871.
9. Arva J, Fitzgerald SG, Cooper RA, Boninger ML. Mechanical efficiency and user power requirement with a pushrim activated power assisted wheelchair. Med Eng Phys 2001; 23:699-705.
10. Corfman TA, Cooper RA, Boninger ML, Koontz AM, Fitzgerald SG. Range of motion and stroke frequency differences between manual wheelchair propulsion and pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair propulsion. J Spinal Cord Med 2003;26:135-140.
11. Levy CE, Chow JW, Tillman MD, Hanson C, Donohue T, Mann WC. Variable-ratio pushrim-activated power-assist wheelchair eases wheeling over a variety of terrains for elders. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:104-112.
12. Levy CE, Chow JW. Pushrim-activated power-assist wheelchairs: Elegance in motion. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 83:166-167.
13. Cooper RA, Fitzgerald SG, Boninger ML, Prins K, Rentschler AJ, Arva J, O'Connor TJ. Evaluation of a pushrim-activated, power-assisted wheelchair. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:702-708.
14. Somers MF, Wlodarczyk S. Use of a pushrim-activated, power-assisted wheelchair enhanced mobility for an individual with cervical 5/6 tetraplegia. Neurol Report 2003; 27:22-28.
15. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability, and health: ICF, Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
16. Chow JW, Tillman MD, Levy CE, Mann WC, Hanson CS, Donohue TJ. Electromyographic comparison of wheelchair propulsion using manual and power-assisted chairs. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002;34(5 Suppl 1):S90.
17. Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2003.
18. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 2000.
19. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST Version 2.0) - An outcome measure for assistive technology devices. Webster, NY: Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 2000.
20. Shone Stickel M, Ryan S, Rigby PJ, Jutai JW. Toward a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of electronic aids to daily living: Evaluation of consumer satisfaction. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24(1-3):115-125.
21. Jedeloo S, De Witte LP, Linssen BA, Schrijvers AJ. Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24(10):550-557.
22. Trefler E, Fitzgerald SG, Hobson DA, Bursick T, Joseph R. Outcomes of wheelchair systems intervention with residents of long-term care facilities. Assist Technol 2004;16:18-27.
23. Mills T, Holm MB, Trefler E, Schmeler M, Fitzgerald S, Boninger M. Development and consumer validation of the Functional Evaluation in a Wheelchair (FEW) instrument. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24(1-3):38-46.
24. Mortenson WB, Miller WC, Miller-Pogar J. Measuring wheelchair intervention outcomes: Development of the Wheelchair Outcome Measure. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007;2:275-285.
25. Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl M, Polatajko H, Pollock N. Canadian occupational performance measure. 4th ed, Ottawa: CAOT Publications ACE; 2005.
26. Bottos M, Bolcati C, Sciuto L, Ruggeri C, Feliciangeli A. Powered wheelchairs and independence in young children with tetraplegia. Dev Med Child Neurol 2001;43:769-777.
27. Reid D, Rigby P, Ryan S. Functional impact of a rigid pelvic stabilizer on children with cerebral palsy who use wheelchairs: Users' and caregivers' perceptions. Pediatr Rehabil 1999; 3:101-118.
28. Tam C, Reid D, Naumann S, O'Keefe B. Perceived benefits of word prediction intervention on written productivity in children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Occup Ther Int 2002;9:237-255. (Pubitemid 35276557)
29. Demers L, Wessels R, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B, De Witte LP. An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Occup Ther Int 1999;6:159-175.
30. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 1996;8:3-13.
31. Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, Arnold DL, Wolfson C. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24(1-3):21-30.
32. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 2000;12:96-105.
33. Holm MB. Wheelchair outcome tool briefs: Functioning Everyday with a Wheelchair - Capacity (FEW-C) and Performance (FEW-P). Int J MS Care 2005;7:111-114.
34. Day H, Jutai J. PIADS: The psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (Version 4.2.1), London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario; 1996.
35. Jutai J. Quality of life impact of assistive technology. Rehabil Eng 1999;14:2-7.
36. Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices: The PIADS. Can J Rehabil 1996;9:159-168.
37. Jutai J, Day H. Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technol Disabil 2002;14:111.
38. McColl MA, Paterson M, Davies D, Doubt L, Law M. Validity and community utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Can J Occup Ther 2000;67:22-30.
39. Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl M, Polatajko H, Pollock N. Canadian occupational performance measure. 3rd ed, Ottawa, Ontario: CAOT; 1998.
40. Hassard TH. Understanding biostatistics, St. Louis: Mosby; 1991.
41. Fitzgerald SG, Arva J, Cooper RA, Dvorznak MJ, Spaeth DM, Boninger ML. A pilot study on community usage of a pushrim-activated, power-assisted wheelchair. Assist Technol 2003;15:113-119.
42. Buning ME, Angelo JA, Schmeler MR. Occupational performance and the transition to powered mobility: A pilot study. Am J Occup Ther 2001;55:339-344.
43. Davies A, De Souza LH, Frank AO. Changes in the quality of life in severely disabled people following provision of powered indoor/outdoor chairs. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:286-290.
44. Evans R. The effect of electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs on occupation: A study of users' views. Br J Occup Ther 2000;63:547-553.
45. Miles-Tapping C, MacDonald LJ. Lifestyle implications of power mobility. .. electric wheelchair and scooter users. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr 1994;12:31-49.
46. Lenker JA, Paquet VL. A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol 2003;15:1-15.
47. RoelandsM, VanOP,DepoorterA, Buysse A. A social-cognitive model to predict the use of assistive devices for mobility and selfcare in elderly people. Gerontologist 2002;42:39-50.
48. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: The Free Press; 1995.
49. Scherer MJ. The change in emphasis from people to person: Introduction to the special issue on assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24(1-3):1-4.
50. Devitt R, Chau B, Jutai JW. The effect of wheelchair use on the quality of life of persons with multiple sclerosis. Occup Ther Health Care 2003;17(3/4):63-79.
51. Gray DB, Hollingsworth HH, Stark SL, Morgan KA. Participation survey/mobility: Psychometric properties of a measure of Participation for people with mobility impairments and limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:189-197.
52. Mortenson WB, Miller WC, Auger C. Issues for the selection of wheelchair-specific Activity and Participation outcome measures: A review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:1177-1186.