Advertisement

Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 215–220 | Cite as

Problems of older persons using a wheeled walker

  • Ulrich LindemannEmail author
  • Michael Schwenk
  • Jochen Klenk
  • Max Kessler
  • Michael Weyrich
  • Franziska Kurz
  • Clemens Becker
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Wheeled walkers (WWs) are used to improve mobility and for fall prevention in older persons, but not all users are satisfied with the usability of WWs. Intelligent WWs are being developed to improve the usability.

Aims

The aim of this study was to support the development of intelligent WWs by investigating possible problems of using a WW.

Methods

This study investigated 22 geriatric in-patients (median age 82 years) with and without their WW while opening a door against the direction of walking and passing through. Other possible problems when using WWs were identified by interview.

Results

Walking through the door was faster without than with using the WW (8.71 versus 12.86 s, p < 0.001), while interference between door and WW was documented in 41 of 44 (93 %) cases. Backward walking performance was better when using a WW with regard to gait speed, step width and walk ratio (all p < 0.002). Most referred problems when using a WW were walking downhill (83 %) and uphill (77 %) and obstacle crossing in general (77 %).

Conclusions

Problems with opening a door against the direction of walking and the optimization of downhill and uphill walking as well as obstacle crossing should be regarded when developing an intelligent WW.

Keywords

Door Older persons Usability Wheeled walker 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Aaron Haslbauer, Karin Kampe and Elisabeth Petrias for data collection and technical support and the authors thank Aileen Currie for proofreading the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This work was supported by the Robert Bosch Foundation as the owner of the Robert-Bosch-Hospital where the study was conducted. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Steffen TM, Hacker TA, Mollinger L (2002) Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people: 6-min walk test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go Test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther 82:128–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bateni H, Maki BE (2005) Assistive devices for balance and mobility: benefits, demands, and adverse consequences. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86:134–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salminen AL, Brandt A, Samuelsson K et al (2009) Mobility devices to promote activity and participation: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med 41:697–706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Graafmans WC, Lips P, Wijlhuizen GJ et al (2003) Daily physical activity and the use of a walking aid in relation to falls in elderly people in a residential care setting. Zeitschrift Für Gerontologie Und Geriatrie 36:23–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Riel KMM, Hartholt KA, Panneman MJM et al (2014) Four-wheeled walker related injuries in older adults in the Netherlands. Inj Prev 20:11–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bryant MS, Pourmoghaddam A, Thrasher A (2012) Gait changes with walking devices in persons with Parkinson’s disease. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 7:149–152CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brandt A, Iwarsson S, Stahl A (2003) Satisfaction with rollators among community-living users: a follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil 25:343–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simoneau M, Teasdale N, Bourdin C et al (1999) Aging and postural control: postural perturbations caused by changing the visual anchor. J Am Geriatr Soc 47:235–240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bateni H, Heung E, Zettel J et al (2004) Can use of walkers or canes impede lateral compensatory stepping movements? Gait Posture 20:74–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tung JY, Chee JN, Zabjek KF et al (2014) Combining ambulatory and laboratory assessment of rollator use for balance and mobility in neurologic rehabilitation in-patients. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2014.908243 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fritz NE, Worstell AM, Kloos AD et al (2013) Backward walking measures are sensitive to age-related changes in mobility and balance. Gait Posture 37:593–597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rentschler AJ, Cooper RA, Blasch B et al (2003) Intelligent walkers for the elderly: performance and safety testing of VA-PAMAID robotic walker. J Rehabil Res Dev 40:423–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Umea University (2014) Biotech Umeå—developing an intelligent rollator. http://www.biotechumea.se/developing-an-intelligent-rollator. Accessed 22 July 2014
  14. 14.
    University of Stuttgart (2014) Institut für Automatisierungs- und Softwaretechnik. http://www.ias.uni-stuttgart.de/?page_id=46&demo_id=18. Accessed 17 July 2014
  15. 15.
    Sekiya N, Nagasaki H (1998) Reproducibility of the walking patterns of normal young adults: test-retest reliability of the walk ratio (step-length/step-rate). Gait Posture 7:225–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC (1999) A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport 70:113–119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Groll DL, To T, Bombardier C et al (2005) The development of a comorbidity index with physical function as the outcome. J Clin Epidemiol 58:595–602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Callisaya ML, Blizzard L, McGinley JL et al (2012) Risk of falls in older people during fast-walking–the TASCOG study. Gait Posture 36:510–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrich Lindemann
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Michael Schwenk
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jochen Klenk
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Max Kessler
    • 4
  • Michael Weyrich
    • 2
    • 4
  • Franziska Kurz
    • 1
  • Clemens Becker
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geriatrics and Clinic for Geriatric RehabilitationRobert-Bosch-HospitalStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.University Stuttgart Research Initiative Human Factors in Ageing, Technology and EnvironmentStuttgartGermany
  3. 3.Institute of EpidemiologyUlm UniversityUlmGermany
  4. 4.Institute for Automation and Software EngineeringUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations