Emma L Friesen1, Deborah Theodoros, Trevor G Russell. 1. Telerehabilitation Research Unit, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland , St Lucia, Qld , Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to explore the use of Mobile Shower Commodes (MSCs) by adults with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) and to understand how adults with SCI and expert clinicians identify and select MSC designs and features. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven adults with SCI and eight expert clinical prescribers using semi-structured guides. Transcripts were analysed thematically using the Policy, Human, Activity, Assistance and Technology, and Environment (PHAATE) model as the underpinning theoretical framework. RESULTS: Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed 3 themes and 12 sub-themes. The main themes were: (1) Activities, routines and interacting factors, (2) Features for functioning and (3) Getting it right. Substantial links existed between and across the themes and subthemes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MSCs by adults with SCI is complex. MSC performance varies across activities, and during interactions between the user, the MSC, other assistive technologies, assistance and physical environments. Future studies should explore service delivery processes and develop validated clinical assessment instruments and outcome measures for MSC provision. Implications for Rehabilitation Mobile shower commode use is complex, involving nine distinct activities and three types of routines. Mobile shower commodes used by Australian adults with SCI are individualised to users and include customisations and custom-made components. Trialling individualised mobile shower commodes prior to funding is problematic and not reflected in assistive service delivery models. Validated clinical instruments for assessing and selecting mobile shower commode features are needed.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to explore the use of Mobile Shower Commodes (MSCs) by adults with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) and to understand how adults with SCI and expert clinicians identify and select MSC designs and features. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven adults with SCI and eight expert clinical prescribers using semi-structured guides. Transcripts were analysed thematically using the Policy, Human, Activity, Assistance and Technology, and Environment (PHAATE) model as the underpinning theoretical framework. RESULTS: Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed 3 themes and 12 sub-themes. The main themes were: (1) Activities, routines and interacting factors, (2) Features for functioning and (3) Getting it right. Substantial links existed between and across the themes and subthemes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MSCs by adults with SCI is complex. MSC performance varies across activities, and during interactions between the user, the MSC, other assistive technologies, assistance and physical environments. Future studies should explore service delivery processes and develop validated clinical assessment instruments and outcome measures for MSC provision. Implications for Rehabilitation Mobile shower commode use is complex, involving nine distinct activities and three types of routines. Mobile shower commodes used by Australian adults with SCI are individualised to users and include customisations and custom-made components. Trialling individualised mobile shower commodes prior to funding is problematic and not reflected in assistive service delivery models. Validated clinical instruments for assessing and selecting mobile shower commode features are needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Assistive technology; mobile shower commodes; spinal cord injury