Self-reported difficulty and preferences of wheeled mobility device users for simulated low-floor bus boarding, interior circulation and disembarking.

BACKGROUND: Low ridership of public transit buses among wheeled mobility device users suggests the need to identify vehicle design conditions that are either particularly accommodating or challenging. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of low-floor bus interior seating configuration and passenger load on wheeled mobility device user-reported difficulty, overall acceptability and design preference. METHODS: Forty-eight wheeled mobility users evaluated three interior design layouts at two levels of passenger load (high vs. low) after simulating boarding and disembarking tasks on a static full-scale low-floor bus mockup. RESULTS: User self-reports of task difficulty, acceptability and design preference were analyzed across the different test conditions. Ramp ascent was the most difficult task for manual wheelchair users relative to other tasks. The most difficult tasks for users of power wheelchairs and scooters were related to interior circulation, including moving to the securement area, entry and positioning in the securement area and exiting the securement area. Boarding and disembarking at the rear doorway was significantly more acceptable and preferred compared to the layouts with front doorways. CONCLUSION: Understanding transit usability barriers, perceptions and preferences among wheeled mobility users is an important consideration for clinicians who recommend mobility-related device interventions to those who use public transportation. Implications for Rehabilitation In order to maximize community participation opportunities for wheeled mobility users, clinicians should consider potential public transit barriers during the processes of wheelchair device selection and skills training. Usability barriers experienced by wheeled mobility device users on transit vehicles differ by mobility device type and vehicle configurations. Full-scale environment simulations are an effective means of identifying usability barriers and design needs in people with mobility impairments and may provide an alternative model for determining readiness for using fixed route buses or eligibility for paratransit.

Sitting versus standing makes a difference in musculoskeletal discomfort and postural load for surgeons performing vaginal surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We compared musculoskeletal discomfort and postural load among surgeons in sitting and standing positions during vaginal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Assessment of discomfort and posture of the primary surgeons in both positions was performed at two institutions. The primary outcome was an increase in body discomfort score after surgery as determined from subjective responses using validated tools. The secondary outcome was the percentage of time spent in awkward body postures measured objectively and stratified into awkward postures for neck, trunk, and bilateral shoulder angles. Variables were compared between sitting and standing positions using Fisher's exact test for primary outcomes and Wilcoxon rank-sum test for secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Data were collected for 24 surgeries from four surgeons in sitting position and nine surgeries from nine surgeons in standing position. The standing surgeons reported a significant increase in discomfort postoperatively for bilateral wrists, thighs, and lower legs compared with the sitting surgeons. The median percentage of time spent in awkward postures was significantly lower for the trunk in the standing versus sitting position (median 0.3% vs 58.8%, p < 0.001) but was significantly higher for both shoulders in the standing versus the sitting position (right shoulder: median 17.8% vs 0.3%, p = 0.003; left shoulder: median 7.4% vs 0.2%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Surgeons reported more discomfort in when performing vaginal surgery while standing. The postural load was worse for trunk but favorable for bilateral shoulders when seated. Such differences may impact a surgeon's decision to perform vaginal surgery seated rather than standing.

A new conceptual model for assistive technology outcomes research and practice.

Predictive conceptual models help us frame research questions, interpret results, and guide clinical practice. Although numerous models have appeared in the assistive technology (AT) literature, none has been shown to predict AT usage. The lack of a valid predictive model indicates the need for development of new approaches to modeling AT outcomes. This article proposes a user-centered conceptual model that predicts AT usage as a function of the perceived relative advantages of AT. Device usage is not modeled as a one-time, all-or-nothing proposition, but as a decision process recurring over time. The influence of parallel interventions working concurrently with, or as an alternative to, AT is a central consideration that ultimately drives AT usage. Usage is shown as a proximal influence on AT impact, and AT impact is shown to be a predictor of future use. Research is cited supporting various elements of the new model.

A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice.

Conceptual models provide a theoretical basis for advancing scientific knowledge and improving professional practice. Although numerous assistive technology-related models have appeared in the literature, there has been no systematic effort to assess them. Six conceptual models are reviewed here: Cook and Hussey's Human-Activity-Assistive Technology model; the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health; Scherer's Matching Person and Technology model; Gitlin's model of an AT user's "career"; social cognition decision-making theories; and Rogers' Perceived Attributes Theory. The models are reviewed in terms of six domains: background and goals; descriptive characteristics; indication of outcome measures; predictive characteristics; validation in the literature; and utility to assistive technology practitioners, developers, and consumers. The salient strengths and limitations are highlighted for each. Application of the models to advance theory, research, and practice is discussed.