OBJECTIVE: To compare the durability, value, and reliability of selected electric powered wheelchairs (EPWs), purchased in 1998. DESIGN: Engineering standards tests of quality and performance. SETTING: A rehabilitation engineering center. SPECIMENS: Fifteen EPWs: 3 each of the Jazzy, Quickie, Lancer, Arrow, and Chairman models. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Wheelchairs were evaluated for durability (lifespan), value (durability, cost), and reliability (rate of repairs) using 2-drum and curb-drop machines in accordance with the standards of the American National Standards Institute and Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America. RESULTS: The 5 brands differed significantly (P<or=.05) in durability, value, and reliability, except in terms of reliability of supplier repairs. The Arrow had the highest durability, value, and reliability in terms of the number of consumer failures, supplier failures, repairs, failures, consumer repairs and failures, and supplier repairs and failures. The Lancer had the poorest durability and reliability, and the Chairman had the lowest value. K0014 wheelchairs (Arrow, Permobil) were significantly more durable than K0011 wheelchairs (Jazzy, Quickie, Lancer). No significant differences in durability with respect to rear-wheel-drive (Arrow, Lancer, Quickie), mid-wheel-drive (Jazzy), or front-wheel-drive (Chairman) wheelchairs were found. CONCLUSIONS: The Arrow consistently outperformed the other wheelchairs in nearly every area studied, and K0014 wheelchairs were more durable than K0011 wheelchairs. These results can be used as an objective comparison guide for clinicians and consumers, as long as they are used in conjunction with other important selection criteria. Manufacturers can use these results as a guide for continued efforts to produce higher quality wheelchairs. Care should be taken when making comparisons, however, because the 5 brands had different features. Purchased in 1998, these models may be used for several more years. In addition, problem areas in these models may still be present in newer models.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the durability, value, and reliability of selected electric powered wheelchairs (EPWs), purchased in 1998. DESIGN: Engineering standards tests of quality and performance. SETTING: A rehabilitation engineering center. SPECIMENS: Fifteen EPWs: 3 each of the Jazzy, Quickie, Lancer, Arrow, and Chairman models. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Wheelchairs were evaluated for durability (lifespan), value (durability, cost), and reliability (rate of repairs) using 2-drum and curb-drop machines in accordance with the standards of the American National Standards Institute and Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America. RESULTS: The 5 brands differed significantly (P<or=.05) in durability, value, and reliability, except in terms of reliability of supplier repairs. The Arrow had the highest durability, value, and reliability in terms of the number of consumer failures, supplier failures, repairs, failures, consumer repairs and failures, and supplier repairs and failures. The Lancer had the poorest durability and reliability, and the Chairman had the lowest value. K0014 wheelchairs (Arrow, Permobil) were significantly more durable than K0011 wheelchairs (Jazzy, Quickie, Lancer). No significant differences in durability with respect to rear-wheel-drive (Arrow, Lancer, Quickie), mid-wheel-drive (Jazzy), or front-wheel-drive (Chairman) wheelchairs were found. CONCLUSIONS: The Arrow consistently outperformed the other wheelchairs in nearly every area studied, and K0014 wheelchairs were more durable than K0011 wheelchairs. These results can be used as an objective comparison guide for clinicians and consumers, as long as they are used in conjunction with other important selection criteria. Manufacturers can use these results as a guide for continued efforts to produce higher quality wheelchairs. Care should be taken when making comparisons, however, because the 5 brands had different features. Purchased in 1998, these models may be used for several more years. In addition, problem areas in these models may still be present in newer models.
Authors: Lynn A Worobey; Allen W Heinemann; Kim D Anderson; Denise Fyffe; Trevor A Dyson-Hudson; Theresa Berner; Michael L Boninger Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 3.966