Adult Scandinavians’ use of powered scooters: user satisfaction, frequency of use, and prediction of daily use

References

• Cooper R, Thorman T, Cooper R. Driving characteristics of electric-powered wheelchair users: how far, fast, and often do people drive? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:250–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward A, Sanjak M, Duffy K, et al. Power wheelchair prescription, utilization, satisfaction, and cost for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: preliminary Data for Evidence-Based Guidelines. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:268–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward LA, Hammond S, Holsten S, et al. Power wheelchair use in persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: changes over time. Assist Technol. 2015;27:238–245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 9999:2016. Assistive products for persons with disability - classification and terminology. 5th. ed. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• NUH-Nordic Centre for Rehabilitation Technology. Provision of assistive technology in the Nordic countries. 2nd ed. Stenberg L, Mathiassen N-K, Jordansen IK, editors. Helsinki: NUH-Nordic Centre for Rehabilitation Technology; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service (NAV). Annual Report. Oslo: The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service (NAV); 2016.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. World population ageing. New York: The United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Dijcks B, de Witte L, Gelderblom GJ, et al. Non-use of assistive technology in The Netherlands: a non-issue? Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006;1:97–102.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherer M. Technology adoption, acceptance, satisfacion and benefit: integrating various assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12:1–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. New York: The Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Jedeloo S, de Witte L, Schrijvers G. A user-centred approach to assess the effectiveness of outdoor mobility devices and services. Int J Rehabil Res. 2002;25:137–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wressle E, Samuelsson K. User Satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scand J Occupat Ther. 2004;11:143–150.
   Google Scholar
• Lacoste M, Weiss-Lambrou R, Allard M, et al. Powered tilt/recline systems: why and how are they used? Assist Technol. 2003;15:58–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt Å. Outcomes of rollator and powered wheelchair interventions. User satisfaction and participation [Dissertation]. Faculty of Medicine, Division of Occupational Therapy, Lund University; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald S, Collins DM, Cooper RA, et al. Issues in maintenance and repairs of wheelchairs: a pilot study. JRRD. 2005;42:853–862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan S, Chan A. The validity and applicability of the Chinese version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology for people with spinal cord injury. Assist Technol. 2006;18:25–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thoreau R. The impact of mobility scooters on their users. Does their usage help or hinder? A state of the art review. J Transp Health. 2015;269–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May E, Garrett R, Ballantyne A. Being mobile: electric mobility-scooters and their use by older people. Ageing Soc. 2010;30:1219–1237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Groot S, Post MWM, Bongers-Janssen HMH, et al. Is manual wheelchair satisfaction related to active lifestyle and participation in people with a spinal cord injury? Spinal Cord. 2011;49:560–565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoenig H, Pieper C, Branch G, et al. Effect of motorized scooters on physical performance and mobility: a clinical randomized trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:279–286.
   PubMed 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 Assist Technol. 2012;7:211–218.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sund T, Iwarsson S, Anttila H, et al. Effectiveness of powered mobility devices in community mobility-related participation: a prospective study among people with mobility restrictions. Pm&R. 2015;7:859–870.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt Å, Iwarsson S, Ståhl 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
• Auger C, Demers L, Geilinas I, et al. Life-space mobility of middle-aged and older adults at various stages of usage of power mobility devices. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:765–773.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Layton N. Barriers and Facilitators to Community Mobility for assistive technology users. Rehabil Res Pract. 2012;2012:454195, 9 p.
   Google Scholar
• Fomiatti R, Moir L, Richmond J, et al. The experience of being a motorised mobility scooter user. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;9:183–187.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pettersson C, Iwarsson S, Brandt Å, 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
• Carver J, Ganus A, Ivey JM, et al. The impact of mobility assistive technology devices on participation for individuals with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11:468–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sund T. Powered mobility devices in a Nordic context: service delivery, effectiveness and methodological development [Dissertation]. Faculty of Medicine, Lund University; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Mindegaard P, Andersen M. Elscootere som forbrugsgoder [Elscooters as consumer goods]. Ergoterapeuten [Dan Occup Ther J]. 2011;3:16–17.
   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 Assist Technol. 2013;8:151–160.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brandt Å, Löfqvist C, Jonsdottir I, et al. Towards an instrument targeting mobility-related participation: Nordic cross-national reliability. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:766–772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, et al. Reliability, validity, and acceptability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:21–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakish H, Franchignomi F, Ferreiro G, et al. Translation into Arabic of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 and validation in orthosis users. Int J Rehabil Res. 2014;37:361–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown M. Participation: the insider’s perspective. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(Suppl. 1):S34–SS7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vet H, Terwee C, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Measurement in medicine. Practical guide to biostatistics and epidemiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Agresti A. An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• SPSS Inc. Introduction to statistical analysis using SPSS Statistics. Chicago (IL): SPSS Inc.; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Karmarkar A, Collins DM, Kelleher A, et al. Satisfaction related to wheelchair use in older adults in both nursing homes and community dwelling. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4:337–343.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Scherer M. The Matching Person and Technology (MPT) model and assessment instruments. 3rd ed. Webster, New York: The Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Frank AO, Neophytou C, Frank J, et al. Electric-powered indoor/outdoor wheechairs (EPIOCs): users’ views of influence on family, friends, and carers. Disabil0 Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5:327–338.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mortenson W, Kim J. Scoping review of mobility scooter-related research studies. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53:531–540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction of Satisfaction with assistive Technology. An outcome measure for assistive technology devices. Manual 2002;14:101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Sakakibara B, Miller WC, Souza M, et al. Wheelchair skills training to improve confidence with using a manual wheelchair among older adults: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:1031–1037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakakibara B, Miller WC, Routhier F, et al. Association between self-efficacy and participation in community-dwelling manual wheelchair users aged 50 years or older. Phys Ther. 2014;94:664–674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper R, Cooper R, Boninger M. Trends and issues in wheelchair technologies. Assist Technol. 2008;20:61–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edvards K, McClusky A. A survey of adult power wheelchair and scooter users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5:411–419.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fänge A, Iwarsson S, Persson Å. Accessibility to the public environment as perceived by teenagers with functional limitations in a south Swedish town centre. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:318–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morseth B, Jacobsen BK, Emaus N, et al. Secular trends and correlates of physical activity: the Tromsø Study 1979-2008. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:1215.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van der Vorst A, Zijlstra GAR, De Witte N, et al. Limitations in activities of daily living in community-dwelling people aged 75 and over: a systematic literature review of risk and protective factors. PLoS One 2016;11:e0165127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang H, Liu H-Y, Pearlman J, et al. Relationship between wheelchair durability and wheelchair type and years of test. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5:318–322.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar