PURPOSE: To gather the opinions of potential wheeled mobility device users at an early stage in the design process to ensure the development of technology which would meet their functional needs. METHOD: Eight women with bilateral lower extremity disabilities living in Gujarat state, India, participated in this study. The women were introduced to a working model of a new wheeled ground mobility device (GADI2) for a brief trial and participated in a feedback interview which solicited information on different aspects of the design, specifically the interface between the device and the user, the physical environment and the sociocultural environment. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analysed. RESULT: Although the overall response to the device was positive, there was a lack of consensus in some of the feedback gathered. There were varying opinions across the participants and recommendations were often in opposition to what would typically be recommended in a traditional rehabilitation setting. CONCLUSIONS: This study investigates and discusses the research findings from a rehabilitation perspective with a focus on the functional versus technical design aspects. The importance of involving potential consumers in the design of technology is highlighted. The small sample size and lack of consensus in some of the results indicates the need for further research and field testing of this new mobility device design.
PURPOSE: To gather the opinions of potential wheeled mobility device users at an early stage in the design process to ensure the development of technology which would meet their functional needs. METHOD: Eight women with bilateral lower extremity disabilities living in Gujarat state, India, participated in this study. The women were introduced to a working model of a new wheeled ground mobility device (GADI2) for a brief trial and participated in a feedback interview which solicited information on different aspects of the design, specifically the interface between the device and the user, the physical environment and the sociocultural environment. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analysed. RESULT: Although the overall response to the device was positive, there was a lack of consensus in some of the feedback gathered. There were varying opinions across the participants and recommendations were often in opposition to what would typically be recommended in a traditional rehabilitation setting. CONCLUSIONS: This study investigates and discusses the research findings from a rehabilitation perspective with a focus on the functional versus technical design aspects. The importance of involving potential consumers in the design of technology is highlighted. The small sample size and lack of consensus in some of the results indicates the need for further research and field testing of this new mobility device design.