Attitudes is the most important environmental factor for use of powered mobility devices – users’ perspectives

References

• Pettersson I, Tornquist K, Ahlstrom G. The effect of an outdoor powered wheelchair on activity and participation in users with stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;1:235–243.
   Google Scholar
• May M, Rugg S. Electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs: recipients' views of their effects on occupational performance and quality of life. Br J Occup Ther. 2010;73:2–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salminen A-L, Brandt Å, Samuelsson K, et al. Mobility devices to promote activity and participation: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:697–706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imms C, Adair B, Keen D, et al. 'Participation': a systematic review of language, definitions, and constructs used in intervention research with children with disabilities. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2016;58:29–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fomiatti R, Moir L, Richmond J, et al. The experience of being a motorised mobility scooter user. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;9:183–187.
   Google Scholar
• Arthanat S, Nochajski SM, Lenker JA, et al. Measuring usability of assistive technology from a multicontextual perspective: the case of power wheelchairs. Am J Occup Ther. 2009;63:751–764.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson C, Iwarsson S, Brandt A, et al. Men's and women's perspectives on using a powered mobility device: benefits and societal challenges. Scand J Occup Ther. 2014;21:438–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rushton PW, Kairy D, Archambault P, et al. The potential impact of intelligent power wheelchair use on social participation: perspectives of users, caregivers and clinicians. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;10:191–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torkia C, Reid D, Korner-Bitensky N, et al. Power wheelchair driving challenges in the community: a users' perspective. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;10:211–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ripat J, Colatruglio A. Exploring winter community participation among wheelchair users: an online focus group. Occup Ther Health Care. 2016;30:95–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sund T, Iwarsson S, Anttila H, et al. Effectiveness of powered mobility devices in enabling community mobility-related participation: A prospective study among people with mobility restrictions. PM&R. 2015;7:859–870.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löfqvist C, Pettersson C, Iwarsson S, et al. Mobility and mobility-related participation outcomes of powered wheelchair and scooter interventions after 4-months and 1-year use. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;7:211–218.
   Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Kim J. Scoping review of mobility scooter-related research studies. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53:531–540.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dahlberg R, Blomquist U-B, Richter A, et al. The service delivery system for assistive technology in Sweden: Current situation and trends. Technol Disabil. 2014;26:191–197.
   Google Scholar
• Sund T, Iwarsson S, Andersen MC, et al. Documentation of and satisfaction with the service delivery process of electric powered scooters among adult users in different national contexts. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;8:151–160.
   Google Scholar
• Kylberg M, Löfqvist C, Tomsone S, et al. A European perspective on the service delivery systems for assistive technology–differences and similarities between Latvia and Sweden. J Cross Cult Gerontol. 2015;30:51–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans S, Frank AO, Neophytou C, et al. Older adults' use of, and satisfaction with, electric powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs. Age Ageing. 2007;36:431–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fomiatti R, Richmond J, Moir L, et al. A systematic review of the impact of powered mobility devices on older adults’ activity engagement. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics. 2013;31:297–309.
   Google Scholar
• Law M, Cooper B, Strong S, et al. The person-environment-occupation model: A transactive approach to occupational performance. Can J Occup Ther. 1996;63:9–23.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Kielhofner G. Model of human occupation: theory and application. 4th ed. Baltimore (MD): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Therapists CAoO. Enabling occupation: an occupational therapy perspective. Ottawa: CAOT Publications ACE Ontario; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Stamm TA, Cieza A, Machold K, et al. Exploration of the link between conceptual occupational therapy models and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Aust Occup Ther J. 2006;53:9–17.
   Google Scholar
• Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurs Educ Today. 2004;24:105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton MQ. Qualitative research. Wiley Online Libr. 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Fusch PI, Ness LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qual Report. 2015;20:1408–1416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widehammar C, Pettersson I, Janeslätt G, et al. The influence of environment: Experiences of users of myoelectric arm prosthesis—a qualitative study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018;42:28–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adolfsson P, Lindstedt H, Pettersson I, et al. Perception of the influence of environmental factors in the use of electronic planning devices in adults with cognitive disabilities. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;1:1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Pavey A, Warren N, Allen-Collinson J. “It Gives Me My Freedom”: Technology and responding to bodily limitations in motor neuron disease. Med Anthropol. 2015;34:442–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ripat J, Verdonck M, Carter RJ. The meaning ascribed to wheeled mobility devices by individuals who use wheelchairs and scooters: a metasynthesis. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;13:253–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer M. Matching person and technology. Career Paths in Telemental Health. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 269–275.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching person & technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol Disabil. 2002;14:125–131.
   Google Scholar
• Stenberg G, Henje C, Levi R, et al. Living with an electric wheelchair–the user perspective. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;11:385–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson I, Fahlström G. Roles of assistive devices for home care staff in Sweden: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;5:295–304.
   Google Scholar
• Blach Rossen C, Sørensen B, Würtz Jochumsen B, et al. Everyday life for users of electric wheelchairs–a qualitative interview study. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;7:399–407.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelsson K, Wressle E. Powered wheelchairs and scooters for outdoor mobility: a pilot study on costs and benefits. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;9:330–334.
   Google Scholar
• Hagberg L, Hermansson L, Fredriksson C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of powered mobility devices for elderly people with disability. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;12:115–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson C, Lofqvist C, Fange AM. Clients' experiences of housing adaptations: a longitudinal mixed-methods study. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:1706–1715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widehammar C, Lidström H, Hermansson L. Environmental barriers to participation and facilitators for use of three types of assistive technology devices. Assist Technol. 2017;1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sveriges riksdag. Diskrimineringslag (2008:567). Stockholm, Sweden: Sveriges riksdag; 2016 [cited 2016 September 22]. Available from: http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/diskrimineringslag-2008567_sfs-2008-567
   Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Clarke LH, Best K. Prescribers’ experiences with powered mobility prescription among older adults. Am J Occup Ther. 2013;67:100–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Nes F, Abma T, Jonsson H, et al. Language differences in qualitative research: is meaning lost in translation? Eur J Ageing. 2010;7:313–316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. In: VALLES M, editor. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Técnicas. 2001 1985.
   Google Scholar