Powered wheelchairs and scooters for outdoor mobility: a pilot study on costs and benefits

Abstract Purpose: This study evaluates the effect of electric powered wheelchairs/scooters (PWC/S) on occupational performance, social participation, health and life satisfaction. In addition, this study estimates the costs and benefits of PWC/S and describes users’ experiences with the delivery process. Methods: This prospective study has a before-and-after design. Postal questionnaires were sent to 24 first-time PWC/S users before delivery of the PWC/S and 4 months after delivery. The participants used their PWC/S for outdoor mobility. Results: PWC/S improved the users’ daily lives, their ability to engage in mobility-related activities and their social participation. For a majority of the users, estimated independence, feelings of safety and self-esteem increased although overall health and life satisfaction were not significantly affected. All users thought that the therapist had considered their needs during the providing process. Most participants (73%) were satisfied with their device at follow-up. For the 12 users who reported no change in health status between measures, the mean societal savings based on calculated costs for assistance was €6227 per person per year. Conclusions: PWC/S seems to improve occupational performance, social participation and life satisfaction for users. Moreover, these improvements seem to have an economic advantage for both users and society. Implications for Rehabilitation The use of a PWC/S has been shown to positively affect a person’s independence in daily activities which in turn increases the sense of self-esteem and security. Facilitating mobility is cost-effective both from a societal as well as from anindividual perspective and should be a key intervention in rehabilitation.

[1]  C. Löfqvist,et al.  Mobility and mobility-related participation outcomes of powered wheelchair and scooter interventions after 4-months and 1-year use , 2012, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[2]  A. Vanbiervliet,et al.  Predictors of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial factors , 2005, Disability and rehabilitation.

[3]  A. Williams EuroQol : a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life , 1990 .

[4]  J. Jutai,et al.  Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead , 2002, Disability and rehabilitation.

[5]  Michelle Brasure,et al.  Wheeled Mobility (Wheelchair) Service Delivery: Scope of the Evidence , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[6]  L Demers,et al.  Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). , 1996, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[7]  Å. Brandt,et al.  Older people's use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[8]  R Lee Kirby,et al.  Ability of people with stroke to learn powered wheelchair skills: a pilot study. , 2010, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[9]  Ingvor Pettersson,et al.  The effect of an outdoor powered wheelchair on activity and participation in users with stroke , 2006, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[10]  A. Frank,et al.  Changes in the quality of life in severely disabled people following provision of powered indoor/outdoor chairs , 2003, Disability and rehabilitation.

[11]  Susanne Iwarsson,et al.  Towards an instrument targeting mobility-related participation: Nordic cross-national reliability. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[12]  Oskar Krantz,et al.  Assistive devices utilisation in activities of everyday life – a proposed framework of understanding a user perspective , 2012, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[13]  Luc Noreau,et al.  Life-space mobility of middle-aged and older adults at various stages of usage of power mobility devices. , 2010, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[14]  Å. Brandt,et al.  Mobility devices to promote activity and participation: a systematic review. , 2009, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[15]  Stephen Sprigle,et al.  Activities of suppliers and technicians during the provision of complex and standard wheeled mobility devices , 2012, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[16]  Ewa Wressle,et al.  User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: An important element in the rehabilitation process , 2008, Disability and rehabilitation.

[17]  François Routhier,et al.  Perceived impacts of a first wheelchair on social participation , 2012, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[18]  Kersti A M Samuelsson,et al.  Effects of lower limb prosthesis on activity, participation, and quality of life: a systematic review , 2012, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[19]  Claus Rydahl Torp,et al.  [Where is the National Board of Health and Welfare?]. , 2003, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[20]  P. Kersten,et al.  Measuring autonomy in disabled people: validation of a new scale in a UK population , 2006, Clinical rehabilitation.

[21]  Denise Reid,et al.  Impact of Wheeled Seated Mobility Devices on Adult Users' and Their Caregivers' Occupational Performance: A Critical Literature Review , 2002, Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie.

[22]  Marcel W M Post,et al.  KWAZO, a new instrument to assess the quality of service delivery in assistive technology provision , 2006, Disability and rehabilitation.

[23]  Kara Edwards,et al.  A survey of adult power wheelchair and scooter users , 2010, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.