OBJECTIVE: To investigate the ability of spinal cord injury (SCI) patients in the use mobile cellular devices, especially the smartphone. METHODS: Seventeen people with motor complete cervical SCI participated in the study. The assist-devices deemed most fitting were introduced to the patients: a mouth stick, multifunctional splint, activities of daily living (ADL) splint, universal cuff or none of the above. To determine the effective devices, a Multi-Directional Click Test (MDCT), Phone Number Test (PNT), and individual satisfaction inquiry were used. The most appropriate assist device was selected by MDCT. Subsequently PNT and individual satisfaction inquiry were performed with the conventional model and compared. RESULTS: Those with C4 cord injury chose mouth stick. Those with C5 cord injury chose multifunctional splint (3 people) and ADL splint (2 people). Those with C6 cord injury chose universal cuff (3 people) or bare hands only. Those with C7 cord injury chose universal cuff (3 people). With a smartphone, all participants were able to complete the PNT. With a conventional model, only twelve participants (71%) were able to complete the same test. While it took 26.8±6.8 seconds with a conventional model to complete PNT, the same test took 18.8±10.9 seconds to complete with a smartphone (p<0.05). Overall, participants expressed higher satisfaction when using a smartphone. CONCLUSION: The results offer a practical insight into the appropriate assist devices for SCI patients who wish to use mobile cellular devices, particularly smartphones. When the SCI patients are given the use of a smartphone with the appropriate assist devices, the SCI patients are expected to access mobile cellular device faster and with more satisfaction.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the ability of spinal cord injury (SCI) patients in the use mobile cellular devices, especially the smartphone. METHODS: Seventeen people with motor complete cervical SCI participated in the study. The assist-devices deemed most fitting were introduced to the patients: a mouth stick, multifunctional splint, activities of daily living (ADL) splint, universal cuff or none of the above. To determine the effective devices, a Multi-Directional Click Test (MDCT), Phone Number Test (PNT), and individual satisfaction inquiry were used. The most appropriate assist device was selected by MDCT. Subsequently PNT and individual satisfaction inquiry were performed with the conventional model and compared. RESULTS: Those with C4 cord injury chose mouth stick. Those with C5 cord injury chose multifunctional splint (3 people) and ADL splint (2 people). Those with C6 cord injury chose universal cuff (3 people) or bare hands only. Those with C7 cord injury chose universal cuff (3 people). With a smartphone, all participants were able to complete the PNT. With a conventional model, only twelve participants (71%) were able to complete the same test. While it took 26.8±6.8 seconds with a conventional model to complete PNT, the same test took 18.8±10.9 seconds to complete with a smartphone (p<0.05). Overall, participants expressed higher satisfaction when using a smartphone. CONCLUSION: The results offer a practical insight into the appropriate assist devices for SCI patients who wish to use mobile cellular devices, particularly smartphones. When the SCI patients are given the use of a smartphone with the appropriate assist devices, the SCI patients are expected to access mobile cellular device faster and with more satisfaction.