Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Geriatrics Reports
Published in: Current Geriatrics Reports 3/2019

01-09-2019 | Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation (O Addison, Section Editor)

Mobility Challenges Among Older Adult Mobility Device Users

Authors: Oladele A. Atoyebi, Delphine Labbé, Mike Prescott, Atiya Mahmood, François Routhier, William C. Miller, W. Ben Mortenson

Published in: Current Geriatrics Reports | Issue 3/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review describes recent research regarding challenges to mobility experienced by older adult mobility device users.

Recent Findings

Different elements that affect mobility in this population were highlighted using the Human Activity Assistive Technology model. Key constructs in this model include the human (personal factors); the desired activity (mobility); assistive technology (mobility devices); and context (physical and social environmental factors). Poor mobility skills and lack of mobility confidence are personal factors that can limit the places that older adults go. However, new mobility devices are being developed to facilitate independent mobility. The design of the built environment and poor signage are aspects of the physical environment that can constrain mobility and impair wayfinding. Likewise, social factors including funding and prescription policies can reduce access to devices and needed services, and stigma can cause older adults to self-limit their mobility.

Summary

Addressing these challenges could reduce the difficulties that users encounter while navigating the environment and facilitate the mobility and social participation of older adults.
Literature
1.
2.
Musich S, Wang SS, Ruiz J, Hawkins K, Wicker E. The impact of mobility limitations on health outcomes among older adults. Geriatr Nurs (Minneap). 2018;39(2):162–9.CrossRef
3.
Ferrucci L, Cooper R, Shardell M, Simonsick EM, Schrack JA, Kuh D. Age-related change in mobility: Perspectives from life course epidemiology and geroscience. Journals Gerontol - Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71(9):1184–94.
4.
Gell NM, Wallace RB, LaCroix AZ, Mroz TM, Patel K V. Mobility device use in older adults and incidence of falls and worry about falling: findings from the 2011-2012 national health and aging trends study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(5):853–9.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Cook AM, Polgar JM. Assistive technologies: principles and practice. Elsevier Health Sciences;2015;592.
9.
Giesbrecht E. Application of the human activity assistive technology model for occupational therapy research. Aust Occup Ther J. 2013;60(4):230–40.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Williams PA. deWit’s fundamental concepts and skills for nursing. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2018.
11.
12.
Tshiswaka DI, Clay SL, Chiu CY, Alston R, Lewis A. Assistive technology use by disability type and race: Exploration of a population-based health survey. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(2):124–32.
13.
Clay SL, Alston R. Assistive technology use and veterans: An examination of racial differences between Whites and Blacks using the HAAT model. J Vocat Rehabil. 2016;45(2):159–71.
14.
•• Labbé D, Mortenson W Ben, Rushton PW, Demers L, Miller WC. Mobility and participation among ageing powered wheelchair users: Using a lifecourse approach. Ageing and Society. 2018;1–17. This paper reveals how the use of a mobility device by older adults changes over the life course and emphasizes the need for continuous evaluation to accommodate their needs adequately. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0144686X1800122​8.
15.
Tu CJ, Liu L, Wang W, Du HP, Wang YM, Xu YB, et al. Effectiveness and safety of wheelchair skills training program in improving the wheelchair skills capacity: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(12):1573–82.CrossRefPubMed
16.
MacGillivray MK, Sawatzky BJ, Miller WC, Routhier F, Kirby RL. Goal satisfaction improves with individualized powered wheelchair skills training. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(6):558–61.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Kirby RL, Miller WC, Routhier F, Demers L, Mihailidis A, Polgar JM, et al. Effectiveness of a wheelchair skills training program for powered wheelchair users: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(11):2017–26.
18.
•• Miller WC, Best KL, Eng JJ, Routhier F. Influence of peer-led wheelchair training on wheelchair skills and participation in older adults: Clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled feasibility trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;S0003-9993(18):31472–2. Participants in the experimental group of this trial of peer lead wheelchair mobility training performed more skills after the trial and continued to use almost 75% of these skills 6 months later while there was no change in the control group, which suggests peer training may be beneficial.
19.
Giesbrecht E, Miller WC. Clinical benefits of an mhealth wheelchair skills training program for older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(10):e80.CrossRef
20.
Lam JF, Gosselin L, Rushton PW. Use of virtual technology as an intervention for wheelchair skills training: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(11):2313–41.
21.
Louie DR, Eng JJ, Lam T, Spinal Cord Injury Research Evidence (SCIRE) Research Team. Gait speed using powered robotic exoskeletons after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and correlational study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12(1):82.
22.
Borisoff J, Khalili M, Mortenson WB, Van der Loos HFM. Exoskeletons as an assistive technology for mobility and manipulation. In: Encarnação P, Cook A, Simpson R, Adams K, Rios A, Alvarez L, editors. Robotic Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2017. p. 179–212.
23.
Federici S, Meloni F, Bracalenti M, De Filippis ML. The effectiveness of powered, activelower limb exoskeletons in neurorehabilitation: A systematic review. NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;37(3):321–40.
24.
25.
Fisahn C, Aach M, Jansen O, Moisi M, Mayadev A, Pagarigan KT, et al. The effectiveness and safety of exoskeletons as assistive and rehabilitation devices in the treatment of neurologic gait disorders in patients with spinal cord injury: A systematic review. Glob Spine J. 2016;6(8):822–41.
26.
Schmidt R, Lee T. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. 4th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2005.
27.
Spiess MR, Steenbrink F, Esquenazi A. Getting the best out of advanced rehabilitation technology for the lower limbs: Minding motor learning principles. PM R. 2018;10(9S2):S165–73.
28.
Sakakibara BM, Miller WC. Prevalence of low mobility and self-management self-efficacy in manual wheelchair users and the association with wheelchair skill. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(7):1360–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Sakakibara BM, Miller WC, Eng JJ, Backman CL, Routhier F. Preliminary examination of the relation between participation and confidence in older manual wheelchair users. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(4):791–4.
30.
Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Self-Control. W.H. Freeman and Comapny. 1997.
31.
Danks KA, Pohlig RT, Roos M, Wright TR, Reisman DS. Relationship between walking capacity, biopsychosocial factors, self-efficacy, and walking activity in persons poststroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2016;40(4):232–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Miller WC, Speechley M, Deathe AB. Balance confidence among people with lower-limb amputations. Phys Ther. 2002;82(9):856–65.PubMed
33.
West BA, Bhat G, Stevens J, Bergen G. Assistive device use and mobility-related factors among adults aged ≥ 65 years. J Safety Res. 2015;55:147–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Mortenson W Ben, Miller WC. The wheelchair procurement process: Perspectives of clients and prescribers. Can J Occup Ther. 2008;75(3):167–75.
35.
Sawatzky B, Mortenson W. Ben, Wong S. Learning to use a rear-mounted power assist for manual wheelchairs. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(8):772–6.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Wong S, Mortenson B, Sawatzky B. Starting and stopping kinetics of a rear mounted power assist for manual wheelchairs. Assist Technol. 2019;31(2):77–81.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Mattie J, Borisoff J, Miller WC, Noureddin B. Characterizing the community use of an ultralight wheelchair with “on the fly” adjustable seating functions: A pilot study. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173662.
38.
Morone G, Annicchiarico R, Iosa M, et al. Overground walking training with the i-Walker, a robotic servo-assistive device, enhances balance in patients with subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13(1):47.
39.
Shin J, Rusakov A, Meyer B. SmartWalker: An intelligent robotic walker. J Ambient Intell Smart Environ. 2016;8(4):383–98.
40.
Gross HM, Scheidig A, Debes K, Einhorn E, Eisenbach M, Mueller S, et al. ROREAS: Robot coach for walking and orientation training in clinical post-stroke rehabilitation—prototype implementation and evaluation in field trials. Auton Robots. 2017;41(3):679–98.
41.
Leaman J, La HM. A comprehensive review of smart wheelchairs: past, present, and future. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems; 2017.
42.
Mulky RS, Koganti S, Shahi S, Liu K. Autonomous scooter navigation for people with mobility challenges. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Computing (ICCC). IEEE Computer Society; 2018. p. 87–90.
43.
•• Rushton PW, Mortenson BW, Viswanathan P, Wang RH, Miller WC, Hurd Clarke L. Intelligent power wheelchair use in long-term care: potential users’ experiences and perceptions. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(7):740–6. https://www.vchri.ca/research-study/collaborative-power-mobilityinnovative-learning-opportunity-copilot-pilot-study-new . Accessed 1 March 2019. This study used a Wizard of Oz methodology in which the technology developers faked, rather than made a power wheelchair that could be governed by different control strategies. The remote control system that controlled the chair has since been trialed as a potential training tool to promote errorless learning .
44.
Prescott M, Mortenson WB. Barriers and burden to community mobility for people who use assistive mobility devices. Salt Lake City, Utah: American Occupational Therapist Association; 2018.
45.
Conger SA, Bassett DR. A compendium of energy costs of physical activities for individuals who use manual wheelchairs. Adapt Phys Act Q. 2011;28(4):310–25.
46.
Patel N, Batten T, Roberton A, Enki D, Wansbrough G, Davis J. A comparison of energy consumption between the use of a walking frame, crutches and a stride-on rehabilitation scooter. Foot. 2016;28:7–11.CrossRef
47.
Morales E, Gamache S, Routhier F, Rousseau J, Doyle O. Pilot study to measure wheelchair users’ space requirements in the bathroom. J Enabling Technol. 2018;12(3):129–40.CrossRef
48.
49.
Ahrentzen S, Tural E. The role of building design and interiors in ageing actively at home. Build Res Inf [Internet]. 2015;43:582–601.
50.
Ben Mortenson W, Oliffe JL, Miller WC, Backman CL. Grey spaces: the wheeled fields of residential care. Sociol Health Illn. 2012;34(3):315–29.
51.
52.
Giesbrecht EM, Smith EM, Mortenson W Ben, Miller WC. Needs for mobility devices, home modifications and personal assistance among Canadians with disabilities. Heal Reports. 2017;28(8):9–15.
53.
Hums MA, Schmidt SH, Novak A, Wolff EA. Universal design: moving the Americans with disabilities act from access to inclusion. J Leg Asp Sport. 2016;26(1):36–51.CrossRef
54.
•• Bigonnesse C, Mahmood A, Chaudhury H, Mortenson WB, Miller WC, Martin Ginis KA. The role of neighborhood physical environment on mobility and social participation among people using mobility assistive technology. Disabil Soc. 2018;33(6):866–93. This systematic review highlights how features of the environment impact the mobility and social participation of people using mobility assistive technology. CrossRef
55.
56.
57.
58.
Marquez DX, Hunter RH, Griffith MH, Bryant LL, Janicek SJ, Atherly AJ. Older adult strategies for community wayfinding. J Appl Gerontol. 2017 ;36(2):213–33.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Claessen MHG, Visser-Meily JMA, de Rooij NK, Postma A, van der Ham IJM. The wayfinding questionnaire as a self-report screening instrument for navigation-related complaints after stroke: internal validity in healthy respondents and chronic mild stroke patients. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2016 ;31(8):839–54.
60.
Tannert B, Schöning J. Disabled, but at what cost? In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services - MobileHCI ‘18. New York,: ACM Press; 2018. p. 1–7.
61.
Prescott M, Garside N, Tan P, Mortenson WB. Exploring the mobility behaviours of people who use wheeled mobility devices in familiar and unfamiliar environments (Unpublished manuscript). 2019.
62.
Ulrich S, Grill E, Flanagin VL. Who gets lost and why: a representative cross-sectional survey on sociodemographic and vestibular determinants of wayfinding strategies. Kao C-L, editor. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0204781.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
63.
Vandenberg AE, Hunter RH, Anderson LA, Bryant LL, Hooker SP, Satariano WA. Walking and walkability: is wayfinding a missing link? Implications for public health practice. J Phys Act Heal. 2016;13(2):189–97.CrossRef
64.
Völkel T, Weber G. A new approach for pedestrian navigation for mobility impaired users based on multimodal annotation of geographical data. Univers Access Human-Computer Interact Ambient Interact. 2007;Part II(Proceedings of the 7th HCI International). p. 575–84.CrossRef
65.
Hashemi M, Karimi HA. Collaborative personalized multi-criteria wayfinding for wheelchair users in outdoors. Trans GIS. 2017 ;21(4):782–95.CrossRef
66.
Karimi HA, Zhang L, Benner JG. Personalized accessibility map (PAM): a novel assisted wayfinding approach for people with disabilities. Ann GIS. 2014;20(2):99–108.CrossRef
67.
Kasemsuppakorn P, Karimi HA, Ding D, Ojeda MA. Understanding route choices for wheelchair navigation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(3):198–210.
68.
Hunter RH, Anderson LA, Belza BL. Introduction to community wayfinding. In: Community wayfinding: pathways to understanding. Berlin: Springer; 2016. p. 3–16.
69.
Maus M, Lindeman DA, Satariano WA. Wayfinding, mobility, and technology for an aging society. In: Community wayfinding: pathways to understanding. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 153–67.
70.
Mandel C, Laue T. Brain-Computer SA-SW and, 2018 undefined. In: Smart-wheelchairs. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
71.
Krieg-Brückner B, Mandel C, Budelmann C, Gersdorf B, Martínez AB. Indoor and outdoor mobility assistance. In: Ambient assisted living. Berlin: Springer; 2015. p. 33–52.CrossRef
72.
Rodriguez-Sanchez MC, Martinez-Romo J. GAWA – Manager for accessibility wayfinding apps. Int J Inf Manage. 2017;37(6):505–19.CrossRef
73.
Haselwandter EM, Corcoran MP, Folta SC, Hyatt R, Fenton M, Nelson ME. The built environment, physical activity, and aging in the United States: a state of the science review. J Aging Phys Act. 2015;23(2):323–9.
74.
Charette C, Routhier F, McFadyen BJ. Visuo-locomotor control in persons with spinal cord injury in a manual or power wheelchair for direction change and obstacle circumvention. Exp Brain Res. 2017;235(9):2669–78.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Evcil AN. Barriers and preferences to leisure activities for wheelchair users in historic places. Tour Geogr. 2018;20(4):698–715.CrossRef
76.
Lu Y, Karimi H. Real-time sidewalk slope calculation through integration of GPS trajectory and image data to assist people with disabilities in navigation. ISPRS Int J Geo-Information. 2015;4(2):741–53.CrossRef
77.
Comai S, De Bernardi E, Matteucci M, Salice F. Maps for easy paths (MEP): enriching maps with accessible paths using MEP traces. In: Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, LNICST; 2017.
78.
Neves B, Amaro F. Too old for technology? How the elderly of Lisbon use and perceive ICT. J Community Informátics. 2012;8(1):1-12.
79.
Evernden J. Wayfinding in Sydney trialling tactile street name signs. Access by Des. 2008;(115):25–6.
80.
81.
Chemero A. An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecol Psychol. 2003;15(2):181–95.CrossRef
82.
Motamedi A, Wang Z, Yabuki N, Fukuda T, Michikawa T. Signage visibility analysis and optimization system using BIM-enabled virtual reality (VR) environments. Adv Eng Informatics. 2017;32:248–62.CrossRef
83.
Shneier M. Road sign detection and recognition. In: Procedings Volume 6230, Unmanned Systems Technology VIII. Florida: SPIE. Digital Library; 2006.
84.
85.
86.
87.
Park BJ, Furuya K, Kasetani T, Takayama N, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y. Relationship between psychological responses and physical environments in forest settings. Landsc Urban Plan. 2011;102(1):24–32.CrossRef
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
Smith EM, Roberts L, McColl MA, Martin Ginis KA, Miller WC. National evaluation of policies governing funding for wheelchairs and scooters in Canada. Can J Occup Ther. 2018;85(1):46–57.CrossRefPubMed
93.
94.
Arim R. A profile of persons with disabilities among Canadians aged 15 years or older, 2012. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89–654-X. 2015.
95.
96.
Saltes N. Navigating disabling spaces: challenging ontological norms and the spatialization of difference through ‘Embodied Practices of Mobility. Mobilities. 2018;13(1):81–95.CrossRef
97.
Ravneberg B, Söderström S. Disability, society and assistive technology. First. Disability, Society and Assistive Technology. London: Routledge; 2017. p 1–114.
98.
Spence R. Turning barriers into bridges: improving accessibility to small businesses in Vancouver. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University; 2018.
99.
Mortenson W Ben, Hoag E, Higgins R, Emery R, Joyce L. Stakeholders’ perspectives related to the development of a scooter training program. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(4):289–94.
Metadata
Title
Mobility Challenges Among Older Adult Mobility Device Users
Authors
Oladele A. Atoyebi
Delphine Labbé
Mike Prescott
Atiya Mahmood
François Routhier
William C. Miller
W. Ben Mortenson
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Geriatrics Reports / Issue 3/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2196-7865
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13670-019-00295-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Current Geriatrics Reports 3/2019 Go to the issue

Geriatric Psychiatry (S Lehmann, Section Editor)

Integrated Primary and Mental Health Care for Older Adults: Successes, Challenges, and Recommendations

Surgical Care (F Luchette and R Gonzalez, Section Editors)

Managing Infectious Disease in the Critically Ill Elderly Patient

Underserved Populations (H Fernandez, Section Editor)

Aging Patients in Correctional Settings

Surgical Care (F Luchette and R Gonzalez, Section Editors)

The Role of Palliative Care in the Elderly Surgical ICU Patient

Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation (O Addison, Section Editor)

In-Home Video Telehealth for Dementia Management: Implications for Rehabilitation

Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation (O Addison, Section Editor)

Review of Forward-Head Posture and Vestibular Deficits in Older Adults
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

Read more

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Pediatric Cardiology Video

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

Cardiopulmonary Comorbidity Video

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Valvular Heart Disease Video

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Heart Failure Video

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch now

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits