Premium
Effectiveness of Powered Mobility Devices in Enabling Community Mobility‐Related Participation: A Prospective Study Among People With Mobility Restrictions
Author(s) -
Sund Terje,
Iwarsson Susanne,
Anttila Heidi,
Brandt Åse
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
pmandr
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.617
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1934-1563
pISSN - 1934-1482
DOI - 10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.02.001
Subject(s) - confidence interval , psychological intervention , medicine , sample (material) , wheelchair , prospective cohort study , psychology , gerontology , nursing , computer science , chemistry , surgery , chromatography , world wide web
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of powered mobility device (ie, powered wheelchair and scooter) interventions over a 1‐year period in Nordic countries. Design Prospective design. Setting The study involved community‐dwelling participants from Denmark, Finland, and Norway. Participants In all, 180 participants with different self‐reported impairments participated in the study. The mean age was 68.7 years (95% confidence interval [CI] = 39.9‐97.5 years), and 47.8% of the participants were men. Methods Two face‐to‐face interviews about mobility and mobility‐related participation were conducted with participants in their homes. The first interview took place shortly before the participants received their powered mobility device, and the second took place about 1 year later (mean, 386.9 days; standard deviation = 52.78). Main Outcome Measures Changes in frequency, ease/difficulty, and number of mobility‐related aspects of participation in daily life were investigated in the total sample and in subgroups by means of the NOMO 1.0 instrument, applying a structured interview format. Results In the total sample, the frequency of shopping for groceries ( P < .001, effect size = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.08‐0.50) and going for a walk/ride ( P < .001, effect size = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.41‐83) increased, whereas the number of aspects of participation performed ( P < .001) increased only slightly. Going to a restaurant/café/pub, shopping for groceries, doing other shopping, posting letters, going to the bank or the chemist's, going for a walk/ride, and visiting family/friends became easier ( P < .001 to P = .001); effect sizes varied between 0.50 (95% CI = 0.29‐0.71) and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.63‐1.07). Men, persons who used scooters, and persons with poor self‐reported health seem to benefit the most from the intervention. Conclusions Powered mobility device interventions mainly contribute to mobility‐related participation by making participation easier for people with mobility restrictions and by increasing the frequency of aspects of participation such as shopping for groceries and going for a walk/ride. The effects varied with regard to the subgroups. The present study further strengthens the current evidence that powered mobility devices increase mobility‐related participation in daily life among certain subgroups of adults with mobility restrictions.