Maria Luisa Toro1, Lynn Worobey2, Michael L Boninger2, Rory A Cooper1, Jonathan Pearlman3. 1. Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Department of Veterans Affairs, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Rehabilitation Science and Technology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 2. Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Department of Veterans Affairs, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Department of Veterans Affairs, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Rehabilitation Science and Technology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: jlp46@pitt.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the frequency and types of wheelchair repairs and associated adverse consequences. DESIGN: Convenience cross-sectional sample survey. SETTING: Nine Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems Centers. PARTICIPANTS: People with spinal cord injury who use a wheelchair >40h/wk (N=591). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of repairs needed and resulting adverse consequences, number and types of repairs completed, and location where main repair was completed in the previous 6 months. RESULTS: There were 591 participants responded to the survey, 63.8% (377/591) of them needed ≥1 repair; of these, 27.6% (104/377) experienced ≥1 adverse consequence, including 18.2% (69/377) individuals who were stranded. Of those who needed repairs, 6.9% did not have them completed (26/377). Repairs completed on the wheels and casters were the most frequent repair to manual wheelchairs, whereas repairs to the electrical and power and control systems were the most frequent type of repair on power wheelchairs. Forty percent (79/201) of manual wheelchair users reported completing repairs at home themselves compared with 14% (21/150) of power wheelchair users. Twelve percent of the variance in the odds of facing an adverse consequence because of a wheelchair breakdown can be described as a function of occupation, funding source, and type of wheelchair. CONCLUSIONS: Wheelchair repairs are highly prevalent. There are differences in types of repairs and who completes the repairs based on the type of wheelchair. Wheelchair breakdowns result in adverse consequences for users, and there is a deficit between repairs needed and those completed, highlighting the need for interventions that address these problems.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the frequency and types of wheelchair repairs and associated adverse consequences. DESIGN: Convenience cross-sectional sample survey. SETTING: Nine Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems Centers. PARTICIPANTS: People with spinal cord injury who use a wheelchair >40h/wk (N=591). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of repairs needed and resulting adverse consequences, number and types of repairs completed, and location where main repair was completed in the previous 6 months. RESULTS: There were 591 participants responded to the survey, 63.8% (377/591) of them needed ≥1 repair; of these, 27.6% (104/377) experienced ≥1 adverse consequence, including 18.2% (69/377) individuals who were stranded. Of those who needed repairs, 6.9% did not have them completed (26/377). Repairs completed on the wheels and casters were the most frequent repair to manual wheelchairs, whereas repairs to the electrical and power and control systems were the most frequent type of repair on power wheelchairs. Forty percent (79/201) of manual wheelchair users reported completing repairs at home themselves compared with 14% (21/150) of power wheelchair users. Twelve percent of the variance in the odds of facing an adverse consequence because of a wheelchair breakdown can be described as a function of occupation, funding source, and type of wheelchair. CONCLUSIONS: Wheelchair repairs are highly prevalent. There are differences in types of repairs and who completes the repairs based on the type of wheelchair. Wheelchair breakdowns result in adverse consequences for users, and there is a deficit between repairs needed and those completed, highlighting the need for interventions that address these problems.
Authors: Brandon Daveler; Hongwu Wang; Benjamin Gebrosky; Garrett G Grindle; Urs Schneider; Rory A Cooper Journal: Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil Date: 2017
Authors: Brad E Dicianno; James Joseph; Stacy Eckstein; Christina K Zigler; Eleanor J Quinby; Mark R Schmeler; Richard M Schein; Jon Pearlman; Rory A Cooper Journal: Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol Date: 2018-03-20
Authors: Brad E Dicianno; James Joseph; Stacy Eckstein; Christina K Zigler; Eleanor Quinby; Mark R Schmeler; Richard M Schein; Jon Pearlman; Rory A Cooper Journal: Mil Med Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 1.437
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
Authors: Rosemary Joan Gowran; Nathan Bray; Mary Goldberg; Paula Rushton; Marie Barhouche Abou Saab; David Constantine; Ritu Ghosh; Jonathan Pearlman Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lynn A Worobey; Gina McKernan; Maria Toro; Jonathan Pearlman; Rachel E Cowan; Allen W Heinemann; Trevor A Dyson-Hudson; Jessica Presperin Pedersen; Matthew Mesoros; Michael L Boninger Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 3.966