Advertisement

Satisfaction of Aged Users with Mobility Assistive Devices: A Preliminary Study of Conventional Walkers

  • Josieli Aparecida Marques Boiani
  • Frode Eika Sandnes
  • Luis Carlos Paschoarelli
  • Fausto Orsi MedolaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1026)

Abstract

Elderly users’ satisfaction with their walkers was evaluated. A sample of 13 institutionalized aged participants were interviewed and responded to the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) questionnaire, with eight questions that address their level of satisfaction with different aspects of the device. In general, the users reported to be satisfied with their device, with the highest levels of satisfaction with durability and easiness of use. The lowest scores were associated with device weight, ease of adjusting and device stability and safety. The users’ indicated the device safety, easiness of use and comfort as the most relevant aspects of the device. Elderly users’ satisfaction with their mobility devices is likely to correlate with users’ device needs and expectations.

Keywords

Walkers Elderly Mobility Satisfaction Assistive Technology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from CNPq - National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Process N. 427496/2016-0) and Diku – the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (UTF-2016-long-term/10053).

References

  1. 1.
    Araujo, L.A.O., Santana, R.F., Bachion, M.A.: Mobilidade física prejudicada em idosos: fatores relacionados e características definidoras. Rev. bras. enferm. 55(1), 19–25 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sandnes, F.E., Medola, F.O., Berg, A., Rodrigues, O.V., Mirtaheri, P., Gjøvaag, T.: Solving the grand challenges together: a Brazil-Norway approach to teaching collaborative design and prototyping of assistive technologies and products for independent living. In: Berg, A., Bohemia, E., Buck, L., Gulden, T., Kovacevic, A., Pavel, N. (eds.) Building Community: Design Education for a Sustainable Future, International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education 7 & 8 September 2017, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway. 1 edn. The Design Society; Institution of Engineering Designers, Glasgow, pp. 242–247 (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sandnes, F.E., Herstad, J., Stangeland, A.M., Medola, F.O.: UbiWheel: a simple context-aware universal control concept for smart home appliances that encourages active living. In: Proceedings of Smartworld 2017, pp. 446–451. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Medola, F.O., Bertolaccini, G.S., Boiani, J.A.M., Silva, S.R.M.: Mobility aids for the elderly: challenges and opportunities for the Brazilian market. Gerontechnology 15(2), 65–97 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stowe, S., Hopes, J., Mulley, G.: Gerotechnology series: 2. Walking aids. Eur. Geriatr. Med. 1(2), 122–127 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carvalho, K.E.C., Junior, M.B.G., Sá, K.N.: Tradução e validação do Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0) para o idioma português do Brasil. Rev Bras Reumat 54(4), 260–267 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Samuelsson, K., Wressle, E.: User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: an important element in the rehabilitation process. Disabil. Rehabil. 30(7), 551–558 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wressle, E., Samuelsson, K.: User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 11(3), 143–150 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhou, H., Peng, K., Tiedemann, A., Peng, J., Sherrington, C.: Risk factors for falls among older community dwellers in Shenzhen. China Inj. Prev. 25(1), 31–35 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boiani, J.A.M., Barili, S.R.M., Medola, F.O., Sandnes, F.E.: On the non-disabled perceptions of four common mobility devices in Norway: a comparative study based on semantic differentials. Technol. Disabil. 1, 1–11 (2019). (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josieli Aparecida Marques Boiani
    • 1
    • 2
  • Frode Eika Sandnes
    • 2
    • 3
  • Luis Carlos Paschoarelli
    • 1
  • Fausto Orsi Medola
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Post-Graduation Programme in DesignSao Paulo State University (UNESP)BauruBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceOslo Metropolitan UniversityOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of TechnologyKristiania University CollegeOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations