Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2010
Comparative evaluation of electric wheelchair manoeuvrability.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pellegrini Nadine, Bouche Sébastien, Barbot Frédéric, Figère Marjorie, Guillon Bruno, Lofaso Frédéric
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether manoeuvrability varied between electric wheelchairs.
DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, repeated measures design.
SUBJECTS: Twelve wheelchair users.
METHODS: Three different electric powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs (Invacare Storm 3, Ottobock B500, and Meyra Champ) intended for use by patients with severe impairments were tested over an indoor and an outdoor circuit. Points were assigned when the users touched the circuit boundaries or failed to pass obstacles. The users completed the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology questionnaire (QUEST).
RESULTS: Performance was significantly worse with Ottobock B500 compared with the other 2 wheelchairs on the indoor test (Wilcoxon, p < 0.05 for both comparisons) and compared with Invacare Storm on the outdoor test (Wilcoxon, p < 0.05). The mean 6-item QUEST score, effectiveness, and simplicity of use were significantly worse for Ottobock B500 than for the other 2 wheelchairs (Wilcoxon, p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Differences in manoeuvrability exist between commercially available electric wheelchairs belonging to the same category. Driving tests and QUEST provide complementary and concordant information.
DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, repeated measures design.
SUBJECTS: Twelve wheelchair users.
METHODS: Three different electric powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs (Invacare Storm 3, Ottobock B500, and Meyra Champ) intended for use by patients with severe impairments were tested over an indoor and an outdoor circuit. Points were assigned when the users touched the circuit boundaries or failed to pass obstacles. The users completed the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology questionnaire (QUEST).
RESULTS: Performance was significantly worse with Ottobock B500 compared with the other 2 wheelchairs on the indoor test (Wilcoxon, p < 0.05 for both comparisons) and compared with Invacare Storm on the outdoor test (Wilcoxon, p < 0.05). The mean 6-item QUEST score, effectiveness, and simplicity of use were significantly worse for Ottobock B500 than for the other 2 wheelchairs (Wilcoxon, p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Differences in manoeuvrability exist between commercially available electric wheelchairs belonging to the same category. Driving tests and QUEST provide complementary and concordant information.