215
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

Differences in outcomes between the JoyBar control and standard wheelchair joystick control on two maneuverability tasks: a pilot study

, , &
Pages 523-526 | Received 06 Mar 2017, Accepted 17 Jun 2017, Published online: 09 Aug 2017
 

Abstract

Purpose: To determine if older adult, novice wheelchair users who drive a power wheelchair with a JoyBar control complete maneuverability tasks in less time and with less error than those who drive a power wheelchair with a standard joystick control.

Materials and methods: A parallel randomized controlled trial design conducted at a medical rehabilitation and research centre with ambulatory older adults aged 60 and above (n = 27). The intervention was the JoyBar alternative wheelchair control. The primary outcome measure was total time to complete each of the two maneuverability tasks. The secondary outcome measure was total number of errors during each of the maneuverability tasks.

Results: An independent, two sampled t-test was conducted and revealed that the JoyBar group took a greater amount of time to complete both maneuverability tasks than the control group (p < .05). No significant differences (p < .05) were found in rates of error on either task between the JoyBar and joystick groups.

Conclusions: Maneuverability of a powered wheelchair by novice wheelchair users was not improved through the use of the JoyBar when compared to a standard wheelchair joystick, as measured by rates of error and time to complete maneuverability tasks.

    Implications for rehabilitation

  • Clients who are new to powered wheelchair use may perform maneuverability tasks faster, with equivalent accuracy, using a standard joystick versus the JoyBar.

  • Clients who use a JoyBar may require adjustments to the programming of their wheelchair to ensure optimal performance.

  • Additional training may be required to achieve proficiency in maneuverability tasks with a JoyBar versus a standard joystick.

Note

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

Additional information

Funding

Emma Smith is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fellowship.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 340.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.