Participation in community-based activities of daily living: Comparison of a pushrim-activated, power-assisted wheelchair and a power wheelchair

References

• Brandt A, Iwarsson S, Stahle A. Older people's use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation. J Rehabil Med 2004; 36: 70–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoenig H, Landerman L R, Shipp K M, George L. Activity restriction among wheelchair users. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003; 51: 1244–1251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field D. Powered mobility: A literature review illustrating the importance of a multifaceted approach. Assist Technol 1999; 11: 20–33
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook A M, Hussey S M. Assistive technologies: Principles and practice2nd ed. Mosby, Inc., St. Louis 2002
   Google Scholar
• Buning M E, Schmeler M R. Effects of the transition to powered mobility on occupational performance. Spotlight on technology. RESNA Press, Arlington, VA 1999
   Google Scholar
• Best K L, Kirby R L, Smith C, MacLeod D A. Comparison between performance with a pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair and a manual wheelchair on the Wheelchair Skills Test. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28: 213–220
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper R A, Corfman T A, Fitzgerald S G, Boninger M L, Spaeth D M, Ammer W, Arva J. Performance assessment of a pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair control system. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 2002; 10: 121–126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Algood S D, Cooper R A, Fitzgerald S G, Cooper R, Boninger M L. Impact of a pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair on the metabolic demands, stroke frequency, and range of motion among subjects with tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 1865–1871
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arva J, Fitzgerald S G, Cooper R A, Boninger M L. Mechanical efficiency and user power requirement with a pushrim activated power assisted wheelchair. Med Eng Phys 2001; 23: 699–705
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corfman T A, Cooper R A, Boninger M L, Koontz A M, Fitzgerald S G. Range of motion and stroke frequency differences between manual wheelchair propulsion and pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair propulsion. J Spinal Cord Med 2003; 26: 135–140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy C E, Chow J W, Tillman M D, Hanson C, Donohue T, Mann W C. Variable-ratio pushrim-activated power-assist wheelchair eases wheeling over a variety of terrains for elders. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 104–112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy C E, Chow J W. Pushrim-activated power-assist wheelchairs: Elegance in motion. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 83: 166–167
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper R A, Fitzgerald S G, Boninger M L, Prins K, Rentschler A J, Arva J, O'Connor T J. Evaluation of a pushrim-activated, power-assisted wheelchair. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 702–708
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somers M F, Wlodarczyk S. Use of a pushrim-activated, power-assisted wheelchair enhanced mobility for an individual with cervical 5/6 tetraplegia. Neurol Report 2003; 27: 22–28
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability, and health: ICF. World Health Organization, Geneva 2001
   Google Scholar
• Chow J W, Tillman M D, Levy C E, Mann W C, Hanson C S, Donohue T J. Electromyographic comparison of wheelchair propulsion using manual and power-assisted chairs. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002; 34(5 Suppl 1)S90
   Google Scholar
• Creswell J W. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA 2003
   Google Scholar
• Portney L G, Watkins M P. Foundations of clinical research2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 2000
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST Version 2.0) – An outcome measure for assistive technology devices. Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Webster, NY 2000
   Google Scholar
• Shone Stickel M, Ryan S, Rigby P J, Jutai J W. Toward a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of electronic aids to daily living: Evaluation of consumer satisfaction. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24(1–3)115–125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jedeloo S, De Witte L P, Linssen B A, Schrijvers A J. Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24(10)550–557
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trefler E, Fitzgerald S G, Hobson D A, Bursick T, Joseph R. Outcomes of wheelchair systems intervention with residents of long-term care facilities. Assist Technol 2004; 16: 18–27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills T, Holm M B, Trefler E, Schmeler M, Fitzgerald S, Boninger M. Development and consumer validation of the Functional Evaluation in a Wheelchair (FEW) instrument. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24(1–3)38–46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortenson W B, Miller W C, Miller-Pogar J. Measuring wheelchair intervention outcomes: Development of the Wheelchair Outcome Measure. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007; 2: 275–285
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl M, Polatajko H, Pollock N. Canadian occupational performance measure4th ed. CAOT Publications ACE, Ottawa 2005
   Google Scholar
• Bottos M, Bolcati C, Sciuto L, Ruggeri C, Feliciangeli A. Powered wheelchairs and independence in young children with tetraplegia. Dev Med Child Neurol 2001; 43: 769–777
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid D, Rigby P, Ryan S. Functional impact of a rigid pelvic stabilizer on children with cerebral palsy who use wheelchairs: Users' and caregivers' perceptions. Pediatr Rehabil 1999; 3: 101–118
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tam C, Reid D, Naumann S, O'Keefe B. Perceived benefits of word prediction intervention on written productivity in children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Occup Ther Int 2002; 9: 237–255
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demers L, Wessels R, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B, De Witte L P. An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Occup Ther Int 1999; 6: 159–175
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 1996; 8: 3–13
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, Arnold D L, Wolfson C. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24(1–3)21–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 2000; 12: 96–105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holm M B. Wheelchair outcome tool briefs: Functioning Everyday with a Wheelchair - Capacity (FEW-C) and Performance (FEW-P). Int J MS Care 2005; 7: 111–114
   Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J. PIADS: The psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (Version 4.2.1). University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario 1996
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J. Quality of life impact of assistive technology. Rehabil Eng 1999; 14: 2–7
   Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices: The PIADS. Can J Rehabil 1996; 9: 159–168
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Day H. Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technol Disabil 2002; 14: 111
   Google Scholar
• McColl M A, Paterson M, Davies D, Doubt L, Law M. Validity and community utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Can J Occup Ther 2000; 67: 22–30
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl M, Polatajko H, Pollock N. Canadian occupational performance measure3rd ed. CAOT, Ottawa, Ontario 1998
   Google Scholar
• Hassard T H. Understanding biostatistics. Mosby, St. Louis 1991
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald S G, Arva J, Cooper R A, Dvorznak M J, Spaeth D M, Boninger M L. A pilot study on community usage of a pushrim-activated, power-assisted wheelchair. Assist Technol 2003; 15: 113–119
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buning M E, Angelo J A, Schmeler M R. Occupational performance and the transition to powered mobility: A pilot study. Am J Occup Ther 2001; 55: 339–344
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies A, De Souza L H, Frank A O. Changes in the quality of life in severely disabled people following provision of powered indoor/outdoor chairs. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 286–290
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans R. The effect of electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs on occupation: A study of users' views. Br J Occup Ther 2000; 63: 547–553
   Google Scholar
• Miles-Tapping C, MacDonald L J. Lifestyle implications of power mobility … electric wheelchair and scooter users. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr 1994; 12: 31–49
   Google Scholar
• Lenker J A, Paquet V L. A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol 2003; 15: 1–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roelands M, Van O P, Depoorter A, Buysse A. A social-cognitive model to predict the use of assistive devices for mobility and self-care in elderly people. Gerontologist 2002; 42: 39–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers E M. Diffusion of innovations4th ed. The Free Press, New York 1995
   Google Scholar
• Scherer M J. The change in emphasis from people to person: Introduction to the special issue on assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24(1–3)1–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devitt R, Chau B, Jutai J W. The effect of wheelchair use on the quality of life of persons with multiple sclerosis. Occup Ther Health Care 2003; 17(3/4)63–79
   Google Scholar
• Gray D B, Hollingsworth H H, Stark S L, Morgan K A. Participation survey/mobility: Psychometric properties of a measure of Participation for people with mobility impairments and limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87: 189–197
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortenson W B, Miller W C, Auger C. Issues for the selection of wheelchair-specific Activity and Participation outcome measures: A review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89: 1177–1186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar