Use of a dynamic arm support to drive a power wheelchair: a case report

References

• World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Parker AE, Robb SA, Chambers J, et al. Analysis of an adult Duchenne muscular dystrophy population. QJM. 2005;98(10):729–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uchikawa K, Liu M, Hanayama K, et al. Functional status and muscle strength in people with duchenne muscular dystrophy living in the community. J Rehabil Med. 2004;36(3):124–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellegrini N, Guillon B, Prigent H, et al. Optimization of power wheelchair control for patients with severe duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscul Disord. 2004;14(5):297–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond K, Auger LP, Cormier MF, et al. Assessing upper extremity capacity as a potential indicator of needs related to household activities for rehabilitation services in people with myotonic dystrophy type 1. Neuromuscul Disord. 2015;25(6):522–529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lue Y-J, Chen S-S, Lu Y-M. Quality of life of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: from adolescence to young men. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(14):1408–1413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Essers J, Murgia A, Peters A, et al. Daily life benefits and usage characteristics of dynamic arm supports in subjects with neuromuscular disorders. Sensors. 2020;20(17):4864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz A, Callaway L, Randall M, et al. Mobile arm supports in duchenne muscular dystrophy: a pilot study of user experience and outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(8):880–889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Heide LA, Gelderblom GJ, de Witte LP. Effects and effectiveness of dynamic arm supports: a technical review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;94(1):44–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Essers JMN, Murgia A, Peters AA, et al. Recommendations for studies on dynamic arm support devices in people with neuromuscular disorders: a scoping review with expert-based discussion. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022;17(5):487–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Heide LA, van Ninhuijs B, Bergsma A, et al. An overview and categorization of dynamic arm supports for people with decreased arm function. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;38(4):287–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar A, Phillips MF. Use of powered mobile arm supports by people with neuromuscular conditions. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(1):61–70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van der Heide LA, Ramakers I, Essers JMN, et al. Is it possible to assess the effects of dynamic arm supports on upper extremity range of motion during activities of daily living in the domestic setting using a portable motion capturing device? A pilot study. TAD. 2017;29(1–2):91–99.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Heide L, de Witte L. The perceived functional benefit of dynamic arm supports in daily life. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53(6):1139–1150.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coscia M, Cheung VCK, Tropea P, et al. The effect of arm weight support on upper limb muscle synergies during reaching movements. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11(1):22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holliday PJ, Mihailidis A, Rolfson R, et al. Understanding and measuring powered wheelchair mobility and manoeuvrability. Part I. Reach in confined spaces. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(16):939–949.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudman DL, Hebert D, Reid D. Living in a restricted occupational world: the occupational experiences of stroke survivors who are wheelchair users and their caregivers. Can J Occup Ther. 2006;73(3):141–152.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dolan MJ, Henderson GI. Control devices for electrically powered wheelchairs: prevalence, defining characteristics and user perspectives. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(6):618–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank AO, De Souza LH. Recipients of electric-powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs provided by a national health service: a cross-sectional study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(12):2403–2409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan MJ, Bolton MJ, Henderson GI. Comparison of seating, powered characteristics and functions and costs of electrically powered wheelchairs in a general population of users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(1):56–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastenbroek B, de Haan E, van den Berg M, et al. Development of a mobile arm support (armon): design evolution and preliminary user experience. Proceedings of the IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; 2007 Jun 13–15; Noordwijk, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Van Harlinger W, Blalock L, Merritt JL. Upper limb strength: study providing normative data for a clinical handheld dynamometer. Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;7(2):135–140.
   Google Scholar
• Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67(2):206–207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jutai JW, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, et al. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(4):294–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirby RL, Dupuis DJ, MacPhee AH, et al. The wheelchair SkillsTest (version 2.4): measurement properties. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(5):794–804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Routhier F, Demers L, Kirby RL, et al. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the French-Canadian wheelchair skills test (version3.2): preliminary findings. Proceedings of the RESNA Annual Conference; 2007 Jun 15–19; Phoenix (AZ).
   Google Scholar
• Lindquist NJ, Loudon PE, Magis TF, et al. Reliability of the performance and safety scores of the wheelchair skills test version 4.1 for manual wheelchair users. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(11):1752–1757.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith EM, Low K, Miller WC. Interrater and intrarater reliability of the wheelchair skills test version 4.2 for power wheelchair users. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(6):678–683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rushton PW, Kirby RL, Routhier F, et al. Measurement properties of the wheelchair skills test–questionnaire for powered wheelchair users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(5):400–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law M, Baptiste S, McColl M, et al. The Canadian occupational performance measure: an outcome measure for occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther. 1990;57(2):82–87.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cup EHC, Scholte op Reimer WJM, Thijssen MCE, et al. Reliability and validity of the Canadian occupational performance measure in stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17(4):402–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McColl MA, Paterson M, Davies D, et al. Validity and community utility of the Canadian occupational performance measure. Can J Occup Ther. 2000;67(1):22–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dedding C, Cardol M, Eyssen IC, et al. Validity of the Canadian occupational performance measure: a client-centred outcome measurement. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18(6):660–667.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eyssen IC, Beelen A, Dedding C, et al. The reproducibility of the Canadian occupational performance measure. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(8):888–894.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eyssen ICJM, Steultjens MPM, Oud TAM, et al. Responsiveness of the Canadian occupational performance measure. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(5):517–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Day H. Psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS). TAD. 2002;14(3):107–111.
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Day H, Coulson S, et al. Developing a short form of the psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS). Proceedings of the RESNA Annual Conference; 2007 Jun 15–19; Phoenix (AZ).
   Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Can J Rehabil. 1996;9:159–168.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Monette M, Descent M, et al. The psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS): translation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a Canadian-French version. Qual Life Res. 2002;11(6):583–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. TAD. 2002;14(3):101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, et al. 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(2):96–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Demers L, Fuhrer MJ, et al. Development and preliminary evaluation of the caregiver assistive technology outcome measure. J Rehabil Med. 2015;47(5):412–418.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L. La mesure des habitudes de vie (LIFE-H 3.0): instrument général détaillé. Quebec City: Réseau International sur le Processus de Production du Handicap; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L. La mesure des habitudes de vie (LIFE-H 4.0): guide d’utilisation, version pour adolescents, adultes et aînés. Quebec City: Réseau International sur le Processus de Production du Handicap; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Ranada ÅL, Lidström H. Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process–a systematic review. Assist Technol. 2019;31(2):82–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt Å, Christensen A, Grünberger P. How to accomplish the assistive technology service delivery process for adults in order to obtain the best outcomes – a literature review. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;217:469–477.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dallery J, Cassidy RN, Raiff BR. Single-case experimental designs to evaluate novel technology-based health interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(2):e22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar