OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the impact of power mobility devices (PMDs) varies as a function of stage of usage and to explore key factors associated with greater life-space mobility for middle-aged and older adults. DESIGN: Multicohort study with respondents grouped as a function of stage of PMD usage (reference group with mobility impairments, n=42; initial users, 1-6mo, n=35; long-term users, 12-18mo, n=39). Cohorts were compared with respect to life-space mobility in a continuum of environments ranging from home to outside town, using analysis of variance and chi-square tests. Baseline personal, assistive device, intervention, and environmental factors associated with life-space mobility were explored with age-adjusted linear regression models. SETTING: Four Canadian rehabilitation centers. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of middle-aged and older adults (N=116; 50-89y) living in the community or residential care. INTERVENTION: Procurement of a powered wheelchair or scooter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Life-Space Assessment composite score. RESULTS: Cohort comparisons showed higher frequency of outings for PMD users in the neighborhood (P<.001) and around home (P<.05) and significantly greater Life-Space Assessment composite scores for initial and long-term users than for the reference group (P<.05). Factors such as sex, the nature of activities, and device type explained variances in Life-Space Assessment composite score ranging from 15.9% to 18.0% (P<.006). CONCLUSIONS: Life-space mobility increases after PMD use and remains stable across the stages of initial and long-term use. To appreciate the impact of PMDs, clinicians should consider the environment and a combination of personal and device factors that are associated with the range of life-space mobility in the first 18 months after procurement.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the impact of power mobility devices (PMDs) varies as a function of stage of usage and to explore key factors associated with greater life-space mobility for middle-aged and older adults. DESIGN: Multicohort study with respondents grouped as a function of stage of PMD usage (reference group with mobility impairments, n=42; initial users, 1-6mo, n=35; long-term users, 12-18mo, n=39). Cohorts were compared with respect to life-space mobility in a continuum of environments ranging from home to outside town, using analysis of variance and chi-square tests. Baseline personal, assistive device, intervention, and environmental factors associated with life-space mobility were explored with age-adjusted linear regression models. SETTING: Four Canadian rehabilitation centers. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of middle-aged and older adults (N=116; 50-89y) living in the community or residential care. INTERVENTION: Procurement of a powered wheelchair or scooter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Life-Space Assessment composite score. RESULTS: Cohort comparisons showed higher frequency of outings for PMD users in the neighborhood (P<.001) and around home (P<.05) and significantly greater Life-Space Assessment composite scores for initial and long-term users than for the reference group (P<.05). Factors such as sex, the nature of activities, and device type explained variances in Life-Space Assessment composite score ranging from 15.9% to 18.0% (P<.006). CONCLUSIONS: Life-space mobility increases after PMD use and remains stable across the stages of initial and long-term use. To appreciate the impact of PMDs, clinicians should consider the environment and a combination of personal and device factors that are associated with the range of life-space mobility in the first 18 months after procurement.
Authors: R Lee Kirby; William C Miller; Francois Routhier; Louise Demers; Alex Mihailidis; Jan Miller Polgar; Paula W Rushton; Laura Titus; Cher Smith; Mike McAllister; Chris Theriault; Kara Thompson; Bonita Sawatzky Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Krista L Best; William C Miller; Janice J Eng; François Routhier; Charles Goldsmith Journal: Can J Occup Ther Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 1.614
Authors: Nima Toosizadeh; Matthew Bunting; Carol Howe; Jane Mohler; Jonathan Sprinkle; Bijan Najafi Journal: Gerontology Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 5.140
Authors: W Ben Mortenson; Louise Demers; Paula W Rushton; Claudine Auger; Francois Routhier; William C Miller Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Edward M Giesbrecht; William C Miller; Janice J Eng; Ian M Mitchell; Roberta L Woodgate; Charles H Goldsmith Journal: Trials Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 2.279