Mobility devices to promote activity and participation: A systematic review

Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

Volumn 41, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 697-706

  Salminen, Anna Liisa ^a   Brandt, Åse ^b   Samuelsson, Kersti ^c   Töytäri, Outi ^d   Malmivaara, Antti ^d  

^a SOCIAL INSURANCE INSTITUTION   (Finland)

^b Danish Centre for Assistive Technology   (Denmark)

^c LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^d NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Assistive technology; Effectiveness; Mobility devices; Mobility limitations; Participation; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CLINICAL TRIAL; DATA BASE; DATA EXTRACTION; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PHYSICAL MOBILITY; POWERED WHEELCHAIR; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SOCIAL INTERACTION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WALKING AID; WALKING DIFFICULTY; WHEELCHAIR; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISABLED PERSON; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SELF HELP;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; CRUTCHES; DISABLED PERSONS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MOVEMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY OF LIFE; SELF-HELP DEVICES; WALKERS; WHEELCHAIRS;

EID: 70349560681     PISSN: 16501977     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0427     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Brandt Å. Outcomes of rollator and powered wheelchair interventions. User satisfaction and participation [Dissertation]. Lund, Sweden: Faculty of Medicine, Division of Occupational Therapy, Lund University; 2005.
2. Löfqvist C, Nygren C, Szésman Z, Iwarsson S. Assistive devices among very old people in five European countries. Scand J Occup Ther 2005; 12: 181-192. (Pubitemid 43078123)
3. Sørensen HV, Lendal S, Schultz-Larsen K, Uhrskov T. Stroke rehabilitation: assistive technology devices and environmental modifications following primary rehabilitation in hospital - a therapeutic perspective. Assist Technol 2003; 15: 39-48. (Pubitemid 38252273)
4. Dahlin-Ivanoff S, Sonn U. Changes in the use of assistive devices among 90-year-old persons. Aging Clin Exp Res 2005; 16: 85-92.
5. De Crean AJM, Westendorp RGJ, Willems CG, Buskens ICM, Gussekloo J. Assistive devices and community-based services among 85-year-old community-dwelling elderly in the Netherlands: ownership; use, and need for intervention. Assist Technol 2006; 1: 199-203.
6. Ekholm O, Kjøller M, Davidsen M, Hesse U, Eriksen L, Christensen AI, et al. Sundhed og sygelighed i Danmark og udviklingen siden 1987 [Sickenss in Denmark and its development since 1987]. Copenhagen: Statens Institut for Folkesundheds (SIF); 2006 (in Danish).
7. Tiresias demographics [cited 2009 Feb 3]. Available from: http://www.tiresias.org/research/reports/hdti1.htm.
8. Kaye H, Kang T, LaPlante M. Mobility device use in the United States. Disability Statistics Report (14). Washington, DC, US Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; 2000.
9. United Nations. Standard rules on the equalisation of opportunities for persons with disabilities. New York: United Nations Department of Public Information; 1994.
10. WHO. Disability and rehabilitation WHO action plan 2006-2011. Geneva: Disability And Rehabilitation (DAR) Team; Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention (VIP); Noncommunicable Diseases and Mental Health (NMH) Cluster, World Health Organization; 2006.
11. NUH. Provision of assistive technology in the Nordic countries. 2nd ed. Helsinki: NUH - Nordic Centre for Rehabilitation Technology; 2007.
12. Svensson M, Ödegaard K, Persson U. Hjälpmedel och läkesnära produkter - en kartläggning av marknaden [Assistive technology market survey]. IHE e-rapport 2007: 1. Institutet för hälso- och sjukvårdsekonomi [cited 2008 Jan 27]. Available from: http://www.ihe.se/publiceringar/IHE-e-rapport-2007.pdf (in Swedish).
13. Reid D, Laliberte-Rudman D, Hebert D. Impact of wheeled seated mobility devices on adult users' and their caregivers' occupational performance: a critical literature review. Can J Occup Ther 2002; 69: 261-280. (Pubitemid 36014598)
14. Field D. Powered mobility: a literature review illustrating the importance of a multifaceted approach. Assis Technol 1999; 11: 20-33 (Pubitemid 30012162)
15. Simpson RC. Smart Wheelchairs: a literature review. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42: 423-438.
16. Auger C, Demers L, Gelinas I, Jutai J, Fuhrer M. Powered mobility for middle-aged and older adults: systematic review of outcomes and appraisal of published evidence. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 87: 666-680.
17. WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
18. Dahl TH. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: an introduction and discussion of its potential impact on rehabilitation services and research. J Rehabil Med 2002; 34: 201-204.
19. Khan KS, Kuntz R, Kleinen J, Antes G. Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine. How to review and apply findings of healthcare research. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd; 2003.
20. Pettersson, I, Törnquist K, Ahlstöm G. The effect of an outdoor wheelchair on activity and participation in users with a stroke. Study III. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2006; 1: 235-243.
21. Pettersson I, Ahlstöm G, Törnquist K. The value of an outdoor powered wheelchair with regard to the quality of life of persons with a stroke: a follow-up study. Assist Technol 2007; 19: 143-153. (Pubitemid 47492660)
22. Borghouts AJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM. The clinical course and prognostic factors of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. Pain 1998; 77: 1-13.
23. Shekelle PG, Andersson G, Bombardies C, Cherkin D, Deyo R, Keller R, et al. A brief introduction to the critical reading of the clinical literature. Spine 1994; 19 Suppl 18: 2028-2031.
24. Van Tulder M, Malmivaara A, Hayden J, Koes B. Statistical significance versus clinical importance: trials on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain as example. Spine 2007; 32: 1785-1790. (Pubitemid 47075540)
25. Hoenig H, Pieper C, Bransch L, Cohen H. Effect of motorized scooters on physical performance and mobility: a randomized clinical trial. Arc Pys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 279-286. (Pubitemid 46281843)
26. Ding D, Souza A, Cooper R, Fitzgerald S, Cooper R, Kelleher A, et al. A preliminary study on the impact of push-rim-activated power-assist wheelchairs among individuals with tetraplegia. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 87; 821-829.
27. 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. (Pubitemid 38955457)
28. Trudeau SA, Biddle S, Volicer L. Enhanced ambulation and quality of life in advanced Alzheimer's disease. J Am Ger Soc 2003; 51: 429-431. (Pubitemid 36348911)
29. Uustal H, Minkel JL. Study of the Independence IBOT 3000 Mobility System: an innovative power mobility device, during use in community environments. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 2002-2010. (Pubitemid 39593529)
30. Hellbom G, Persson J. Cost-effectiveness of walkers and wheelchairs. In: Craddock G, McCormack LP, Reilly RB, Knops H, editors. Assistive technology - shaping the future. AAATE 03. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2003, p. 931-935.
31. Persson J, Hellbon G, Husberg M, Fries A. Kostnader och effekter vid förskrivning av rollatorer [Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of walkers]. CMT Rapport 2007: 3 (in Swedish).
32. Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, Cushman LA, Scherer JV. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27: 1321-1331. (Pubitemid 41823742)
33. Tse S, Blackwood K, Penman M. From rhetoric to reality: use of randomised controlled trials in evidence-based occupational therapy. Austral Occup Ther J 2000; 47: 181-185. (Pubitemid 32000364)
34. Sudsawad P. Definition, evolution, and implementation of evidence-based practice in occupational therapy. In: Kielhofner G, editor. Research in occupational therapy: methods of inquiry for enhancing practice. Philadelphia MA: FA Davies Co.; 2006.
35. Rust KL, Smith RO. Assistive technology in the measurement of rehabilitation and health outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 84: 780-793.
36. Kramer P, Hinojosa J, Royeen CR. Perspectives in human occupation: participation in life. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003.
37. The QUOROM statement checklist. [cited 2008 March 9]. Available from: URL: http://www.consort-statement.org/mod-product/uploads/ QUOROM%20checklist%20and%20flow%20diagram%201999.pdf.
38. van den Ende CHM, Steultjens EM, Bouter LM, Dekker J. Clinical heterogeneity was a common problem in Cochrane reviews of physiotherapy and occupational therapy. J Clini Epidemiol 2006; 59: 914-919.
39. Anttila H, Malmivaara A, Kunz R, Autti-Rämö I, Mäkelä M. Quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in cerebral palsy. Pediatrics 2006; 117: 2222-2230. (Pubitemid 46071269)
40. Edyburn DL, Smith RO. Creating an assistive technology measurement system: Validating the components. Assistive Technol Outcomes Benefits 2004; 1: 6-15.
41. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology QUEST version 2.0. An Outcome Measure for Assistive Technology Devices. Webster, New York: The Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 2000.
42. Harris F. Conceptual issues in the measurement of participation among wheeled mobility device users. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2007; 2: 137-148.