A user-inspired mobility experience of the future: a qualitative investigation.

Wheelchair users (WCUs) face additional challenges than non-WCU to multi-tasking (i.e. open doors, cook, use a cell-phone) while navigating their environments. While assistive devices have attempted to provide WCUs with mobility solutions that enable multi-tasking capabilities, current devices have been developed without the input of end-users and have proven to be non-usable. More balanced approaches that integrate the end-users' voices may improve current assistive technology usability trends. This study sought to empathically understand the lived experience of WCUs, their needs towards a mobility device, and their perceptions towards hands-free mobility. Full-time WCUs and care providers participated in semi-structured interviews examining wheelchair use and perceptions towards current and future mobility devices. Thematic analysis was used to analyze interview data. 9 WCUs (aged 32.1 ± 7.0 years; wheelchair experience 17.9 ± 11.6 years) and five care providers (years caring for WCU 3.75 ± 0.96 years) participated in the study. The most common disability type was spinal cord injury (WCUs: n = 3; care providers: n = 3). Qualitative analysis revealed four key themes: (1) Current wheelchair usage, (2) WCU and care provider perspectives, (3) Future wheelchair, and (4) Hands-free wheelchair. Accordingly, participants desire bespoke, light-weight mobility devices that can through tight spaces, access uneven terrain, and free the hands during navigation. This study provides meaningful insight into the needs of WCUs and care providers that assistive technology innovators can use to develop more usable assistive technologies. Amongst study participants, the concept of a hands-free mobility device appears to be usable and desirable.

Integrating end-users' voices into the development of assistive technology may improve current usability trendsWheelchair users desire access to their hands and the ability to multi-task while navigating their wheelchairsThe development of a hands-free mobility device may profoundly improve the quality of life of wheelchair users.

Cardiorespiratory Responses to an Acute Bout of High Intensity Interval Training and Moderate Intensity Continuous Training on a Recumbent Handcycle in People With Spinal Cord Injury: A Within-Subject Design.

Objectives: To compare acute cardiorespiratory responses during high intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) on a recumbent handcycle in persons with spinal cord injury (PwSCI). Methods: Eleven males and nine females with chronic SCI (T3 - L5), aged 23 (9) years, participated in this within-subject design. Based off peak power outputs from an incremental test to exhaustion, participants engaged in a HIIT and MICT session at matched workloads on a recumbent handcycle. Workloads (Joules), time, oxygen uptake (VO2), metabolic equivalent of task (MET), heart rate (HR), and energy expenditure (kcal) were recorded during HIIT and MICT. Results: Total workload was similar across HIIT (87820 ± 24021 Joules) and MICT sessions (89044 ± 23696 Joules; p > .05). HIIT (20.00 [.03] minutes) was shorter in duration than MICT (23.20 [2.56]; p < .01). Average VO2 (20.96 ± 4.84 vs. 129.38 ± 19.13 mL/kg/min O2), MET (7.54 ± 2.00 vs. 6.21 ± 1.25), and HR (146.26 ± 13.80 vs. 129.38 ± 19.13 beats per minute) responses were significantly greater during HIIT than MICT (p < .01). Participants burned significantly more kilocalories during HIIT (128.08 ± 35.65) than MICT (118.93 ± 29.58; p < .01) and at a faster rate (6.40 ± 1.78 [HIIT] vs. 5.09 ± 1.14 [MICT] kcal/min; p < .01). Conclusion: HIIT elicits greater increases in oxygen uptake and HR than MICT in PwSCI. In significantly less time, HIIT also burned more calories than MICT.

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines on the management of community acquired pneumonia in children.

Childhood community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the leading cause of mortality in children under 5 years worldwide. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may be limited by method of development, scope of recommendations and the quality of supporting evidence. This study systematically identified, appraised and compared the recommendations of CPGs for the management of paediatric CAP using the AGREE II tool. The systematic review yielded 1409 non-duplicate results, of which 14 CPGs were appraised. Four of the fourteen CPGs were deemed high quality. Most CPGs were considered low-medium quality with 'rigour of development' and 'applicability' the weakest domains. These areas should be considered in deriving CPGs in the future. Recommendations were generally similar across all guidelines; however, there was notable heterogeneity in three areas. This suggests the need for further evidence to guide management decisions on oxygen saturation thresholds for admission, the utility of investigations such as acute phase reactants, and the duration of antibiotic therapy.