MAPx (Mobility Aid Personalization): examining why older adults “pimp their ride” and the impact of doing so

References

• Corrigan R, McBurney H. Community ambulation: environmental impacts and assessment inadequacies. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30:1411–1419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corrigan R, McBurney H. Community ambulation: influences on therapists and clients reasoning and decision making. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30:1079–1087.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennett AM, Taylor NF, Mulrain K. Community ambulation after hip fracture: completing tasks to enable access to common community venues. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:707–714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor AH, Cable NT, Faulkner G, et al. Physical activity and older adults: a review of health benefits and the effectiveness of interventions. J Sports Sci. 2004;22:703–725.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord SE, Weatherall M, Rochester L, et al. Community ambulation after stroke: how important and obtainable is it and what measures appear predictive? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:234–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsworth CA. Community mobility promotes participation for people of all ages and abilities. Aust Occup Ther J. 2012;59:1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. Global Age-Friendly Cities: a Guide 2007; [cited 2012 Aug]. Available from: http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_English.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gill TM, Gahbauer EA, Murphy TE, et al. Risk factors and precipitants of long-term disability in community mobility. A cohort study of older persons. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:131–140.
   Google Scholar
• Bryant LL, Corbett KK, Kutner JS. In their own words: a model of healthy aging. Soc Sci Med. 2001;53:927–941.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistics Canada, Living arrangements of seniors. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. Federal disability report – seniors with disabilities in Canada. Gatineau (Quebec): Government of Canada; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Gell NM, Wallace RB, LaCroix AZ, et al. Mobility device use in older adults and incidence of falls and worry about falling: findings from the 2011–2012 National Health and Trends Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63:853–859.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Dept. of Public Information. The standard rules on the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. United Nations; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Wu Z, Hart R. The mental health of the childless elderly. Sociol Inq. 2002;72:21–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner P. The role of social engagement and identity in community mobility among older adults aging in place. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1249–1257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ipsos Reid Canadian Senior’s Use & Views of Assistive Devices for Mobility. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner P. Anecdotal reports from:
   Google Scholar
  a) occupational therapists working in the community who regularly observe that their clients do not use their mobility aid (either at all or as trained to do so). They have observed abandoned mobilty devices in clients homes and garages, and b) physiotherapists who report that it is not uncommon for their patients to “shuffle into my office without their mobility aids”. All of these therapists are concerned about these individuals injuring themselves (falling) or others and/or restricting their level of activity. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Kraskowsky LH, Finlayson M. Factors affecting older adults’ use of adaptive equipment: review of the literature. Am J Occup Ther. 2001;55:303–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijcks BPJ, De Witte LP, 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
• Rubenstein LZ. Falls in older people: epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention. Age Ageing. 2006;35:ii37–ii41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alpass FM, Neville S. Loneliness, health and depression in older males. Aging Ment Health.2003;7:212–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinne S. Correlates of exercise maintenance among people with mobility impairments. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21:15–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmer Z, Chappell NL. Mobility restriction and the use of devices among seniors. J Aging Health. 1994;6:185–208.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5:36–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kittel A, Di Marco A, Stewart H. Factors influencing the decision to abandon manual wheelchairs for three individuals with a spinal cord injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:106–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gignac MAM, Badley EM, Lacaille D, et al. Managing arthritis and employment: making arthritis‐related work changes as a means of adaptation. Arthritis Care Res. 2004;51:909–916.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gitlin L, Levine R, Geiger C. Adaptive device use by older adults with mixed disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gitlin LN, Levine RE. Prescribing adaptive devices to the elderly: principles for treatment in the home. Int J Technol Aging. 1992;5:107–120.
   Google Scholar
• Gitlin LN, Luborsky MR, Schemm RL. Emerging concerns of older stroke patients about assistive device use. Gerontologist. 1998;38:169–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin JK, Martin LG, Stumbo NJ, et al. The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6:225–242.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kusenbach M. Street phenomenology: the go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography. 2003;4:455–485.
   Google Scholar
• Carpiano RM. Come take a walk with me: the “go-along” interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health Place. 2009;15:263–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography: principles in practice. New York (NY): Routledge; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitativeresearch, Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2000. p. 509–535.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research.Chicago (IL): Aldine; 1967.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• White K, Argo JJ. Social identity threat and consumer preferences. J Consum Psychol. 2009;19:313–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky JL. The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application to advertising. J Advertis. 1994;59–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malär L, Krohmer H, Hoyer WD, et al. Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: the relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. J Market. 2011;75:35–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baecker RM. Readings in human-computer interaction: toward the year 2000. San Francisco (CA): Morgan Kaufmann; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• McDonagh-Philp D, Lebbon C. The emotional domain in product design. Des J. 2000;3:31–43.
   Google Scholar
• Desmet P, Schifferstein H. Emotion research as input for product design. In: Beckley J, Paredes D, Lopetcharat K, editors. Product innovation toolbox: a field guide to consumer understanding and research. Oxford (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2012. p. 149–175.
   Google Scholar
• Frijda NH, Kuipers P, Ter Schure E. Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57:212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman DA. Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York (NY): Basic Books; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Hirschman EC. The creation of product symbolism. Adv Consum Res. 1986;13:327–331.
   Google Scholar
• Demirbilek O, Sener B. Product design, semantics and emotional response. Ergonomics. 2003;46:1346–1360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel H, Turner JC. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Soc Psychol Intergroup Relat. 1979;33:47.
   Google Scholar
• Marchlewski T, Vosgerau J, Fechtenhauer D. Social identity and product evaluation 2006. Available from: SSRN 947608.
   Google Scholar
• Seeman TE. Health promoting effects of friends and family on health outcomes in older adults. Am J Health Promot. 2000;14:362–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes LL, De Leon CFM, Wilson RS, et al. Social resources and cognitive decline in a population of older African Americans and whites. Neurology. 2004;63:2322–2326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brummett BH, Barefoot JC, Siegler IC, et al. Characteristics of socially isolated patients with coronary artery disease who are at elevated risk for mortality. Psychosomat Med. 2001;63:267–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood L, Giles-Corti B, Bulsara M. The pet connection: pets as a conduit for social capital? Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:1159–1173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNicholas J, Collis GM. Dogs as catalysts for social interactions: robustness of the effect. Br J Psychol. 2000;91:61–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar