Mobility and mobility-related participation outcomes of powered wheelchair and scooter interventions after 4-months and 1-year use

Abstract

Purpose: The aim was to investigate outcomes of powered wheelchair and scooter interventions after 4-months and 1-year use regarding need for assistance when moving around, frequency of mobility-related participation, easiness/difficulty in mobility during participation, and number of participation aspects performed in everyday life. Method: The study was a prospective cohort study, using an instrument focusing on mobility-related participation outcomes of mobility device interventions (NOMO 1.0), at baseline, after 4-months and 1-year use. Results: The results show that the outcomes in terms of participation frequency and easiness in mobility occur in a short time perspective, and that the effects remained stable at 1-year follow-up. The frequency of going for a walk increased most prominently (26%). Even though the majority of the participation aspects were not performed, more often they became easier to perform: 56–91% found that shopping, walking and visiting family/friends were easier. Moreover, independence outdoors and indoors increased. Conclusions: This small study provides knowledge about the outcomes of powered wheelchairs and scooters in terms of mobility and mobility-related participation in real-life situations. The study supports results from former studies, but even so, larger studies are required in order to provide evidence for the effectiveness of powered wheelchairs and scooters.

Implications for Rehabilitation

• Powered wheelchair and scoter interventions increased independence in mobility and easiness in mobility-related participation in everyday life.

• Easiness in participation can be considered an important follow-up dimension after powered wheelchair and scooter interventions.

• A 4-month follow-up time after powered wheelchair and scooter intervention seems adequate.

Keywords::

• assistive devices
• effect
• electric wheelchairs
• mobility devices
• NOMO 1.0
• occupational therapy
• rehabilitation

Acknowledgement

The authors thank statistician V. Horstmann for statistical advice.

Declaration of Interest: The authors report no declarations of interest. This study was supported by funding from the Ribbing Foundation, Lund Sweden and the Swedish Research Council on Social Science and Working Life and accomplished in the context of the Centre of Ageing and Supportive Environments (CASE), Lund University.