SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY 2004;11:143
/150

User Satisfaction with Mobility Assistive Devices

EWA WRESSLE1 and KERSTI SAMUELSSON2
From the 1Department of Neuroscience and Locomotion: Occupational Therapy and 2Department of Neuroscience and Locomotion:
Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping, Sweden

Wressle E, Samuelsson K. User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scand J Occup Ther 2004; 11: 143
/
150.
In Sweden, the most common assistive devices are related to mobility. A study was undertaken to evaluate
users’ opinions on prescription of mobility devices and their satisfaction with devices and services using a
cross-sectional design. A random sample of adult users of mobility assistive devices living in three county
councils of Sweden was selected. A postal package comprising a questionnaire and QUEST 2.0 was sent out to
Scand J Occup Ther Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitaet Zuerich on 07/11/14

400 users of manual wheelchairs, powered wheelchairs, or walkers. Included in the analysis were 208
questionnaires, a response rate of 52%. Most devices were used on a daily basis and satisfaction with the device
was high. Satisfaction with the service was scored lower than satisfaction with the device. Follow-up was the
single item with the lowest mean score, and 69% of the users reported that they had not received any follow-up.
A positive effect especially on users’ ability to be active, transport oneself, feel secure, and to take part in social
activities was found. Owing to the low response rate the results have to be interpreted with caution. However,
follow-up seems to be an area that needs to be improved. The majority of users are satisfied with the device but
not with service. Key words: assistive device, evaluation, mobility, QUEST 2.0, questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION could notice that client participation and a client-

In Sweden, impaired mobility is one of the most centred focus are central features in the Classification
For personal use only.

common problem in the elderly population, resulting
in mobility assistive devices as the most common
assistive device delivered [1]. Included in this group of
devices are wheelchairs (powered and manual), which
is the most costly device group, and walkers, which are
the most common device. More information is needed
on the benefits from assistive devices and regarding
how satisfied users are with the devices and the
prescription process.
According to Gelderblom and de Witte [2] outcome
assessment in the area of assistive devices is of vital
interest because of economic issues and concerns of
quality in relation to costs. The complexity of assistive
device outcomes concerns the need for instruments
that are generic and flexible, address the context in
which the device is used, and measure the extent to
which individual goals are fulfilled. The authors also
focus on the importance of standardization of instru-
ment application and the need for further develop-
ment of instruments, especially through international
collaboration [2]. Kleinpell [3] points out that the
emphasis of outcome measures should be patient-
centred because the patient can best judge the out-
comes. Utility analysis should be based on user
preferences; therefore, the users should be the main
approach [4].
The paradigm shift from disability to ability and
from professional power to patient empowerment
influences the development of rehabilitation and the
fitting process of assistive devices [5]. For instance, one
of Functioning, Disability, and Health, ICF [6]. The
ICF systematically groups functional states associated
with health conditions and accentuates the dynamic
interaction between the health condition and the
contextual factors. Contextual factors include envir-
onmental and personal factors. The environmental
factors encompass individual environmental factors,
services, and systems. Included here are health services
and systems like treating health problems and provid-
ing rehabilitation, as well as products and technology.
These factors can facilitate or limit performance,
therefore they are coded from the individuals’ per-
spective and situation. The personal factors are not
classified but encompass the particular background of
an individual’s life such as age, gender, personality,
lifestyle, habits, education, and profession [6]. The ICF
is developed for clinical practice in the assessment of
needs, matching interventions to specific health states,
rehabilitation, outcome measures, and so on [7].
Another example of the client-centred focus is
described in the Matching Person & Technology
model [8], a model that presents a user-driven process
in order to facilitate the choice of the most appropriate
assistive device and to prevent assistive devices from
being unused. The three basic components considered
are the environment and psychosocial setting in which
the user and the device interact; the characteristics of
the user; and the characteristics of the device. The
components can each contribute with a positive or a
negative influence on the use of the device. This

# 2004 Taylor & Francis. ISSN 1103-8128 DOI: 10.1080/11038120410020728

 144 E. Wressle & K. Samuelsson
process is driven by user goals and preferences and the
degree of match between user and provider perspec-
tives is considered. Many assistive devices are available
that aim to help people maintain optimal independent
living. The matching is a very important step in the
prescribing process in order to come up with the
optimal solution for each individual [8].
Kraskowsky and Finlayson [9] report that factors
influencing use or non-use of prescribed assistive
devices are the suitability of the device, adequate
training, and home visits before prescribing a device.
Reasons for non-use were lack of matching between
the person, the environment, and the device. Sonn [10]
studied the usage rate in a longitudinal study among
Scand J Occup Ther Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitaet Zuerich on 07/11/14
persons at 70 years of age with a follow-up at 76 years
of age. Most common devices were in hygiene and
mobility. The results showed that 77% of all devices
were used often, 13% used sometimes, and 10% were
never used. In mobility, 16% of the devices were never
used. The use of devices improved activity, reduced
dependence on another person, and increased the
user’s sense of safety [10]. A study in a community-
based population reported a usage rate of 84% [11].
Improved health status or difficulties in using the
device were reasons for non-use. The authors con-
For personal use only.
cluded that follow-ups in the home are necessary
because users’ needs change over time, needs that may
require a new or adapted device. Phillips and Zhao [12]
found that 29% of all assistive devices were aban-
doned, and this was related to four factors: lack of
user influence in selection of device; ease of obtaining
the device; poor device performance; and change in
needs. The highest frequency of abandonment con-
cerned mobility aids. One very important part of the
prescription process of assistive devices is to perform a
follow-up in order to determine performance and
satisfaction of the user [13]. The aim of this study
was to evaluate users’ opinions on prescription of
mobility devices and their satisfaction with the devices
and services.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A cross-sectional descriptive study design with a user-
centred approach was used. It was performed in
collaboration with three county councils in Sweden
as a follow-up from user perspective and for quality
improvement reasons. A postal package comprising a
questionnaire with demographic data, questions about
usage, user’s opinion on device influence in daily
living, prescription of the mobility device, and the
QUEST 2.0 was sent to a random sample of 400 users
of manual wheelchairs (n /100), powered wheelchairs
(n/40), or walkers (n/260). They were living in three
different county councils in Sweden and were in the
age group 20
/82 years of age. Included devices were
powered and manual wheelchairs as the most costly
device group, and walkers as the most common device.
This decision was made in agreement with representa-
tives from the three county councils as feedback from
the study was to be reported to each of them.
Sampling was made from the county councils’ registers
containing all prescriptions during the year 2001. The
size of the subgroups was proportional to the total
number of prescriptions. Information on health, func-
tional limitations, type of housing, occurrence of
training programme, or whether home visits were
made before the prescription was not available. Pre-
scriptions were performed within both primary care
and inpatient care. A letter explaining the aim of the
investigation was added, and included was the possi-
bility to return the letter marked that the user did not
want to participate. Type of device as well as product
name was given on the questionnaire in order to
handle whether the user had more than one of the
chosen devices. Participation was optional. The time
between prescription of the actual assistive device and
the postal questionnaire varied from 14 to 26 months.
All data were confidential.
Personal factors studied were age and gender, the
environmental factors concerned the environment in
which the device was used, during which part of the
year, and questions on prescription. The user’s opinion
on how the device affected daily living was included.
The QUEST 2.0 was used in order to gather informa-
tion on the characteristics of the device.
Outcome measures
The Matching Person with Technology model [8] is the
theoretical foundation for the instrument the Quebec
User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Tech-
nology (QUEST 2.0). The QUEST 2.0 [14] is a client-
centred outcome measurement designed to evaluate a
person’s satisfaction with his or her assistive device
and service. It is generic and could be self-adminis-
tered or administered in an interview situation. The
QUEST 2.0 form scores 12 satisfaction items in two
parts: device (dimensions, weight, adjustments, safety,
durability, simplicity of use, comfort, and effective-
ness) and service (service delivery, repairs and servi-
cing, professional services, and follow-up). Each item
is scored on a 5-point ordinal satisfaction scale: 1 ‘‘not
satisfied at all’’; 2 ‘‘not very satisfied’’; 3 ‘‘more or less
satisfied’’; 4 ‘‘quite satisfied’’; and 5 ‘‘very satisfied’’.
Space for comments is provided next to each item. The
user is also asked to select the three most important
items. The QUEST 2.0 yields a total score and sub-
scores for the device and for service. The psychometric
properties have been tested in several studies [15
/19].
 User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices 145

Table I. Numbers of questionnaires distributed to a if they covered important areas; and if the answer
random sample of users in three county counsels in alternatives were clear. Some small alterations were
Sweden made to the final questionnaire as a result of the pilot
interviews.
Sent
out Returned Declined Included The QUEST 2.0 scores were analysed both as
subscales for the device and for the service and as an
Walker 260 190 55 135 (52%)
item-by-item analysis. Internal dropouts were treated
Wheelchair, manual 100 67 23 44 (44%)
Wheelchair, powered 40 34 4 30 (75%) according to the manual [14], meaning that the
QUEST assessment is considered invalid if scores for
more than six satisfaction items (out of a total of
Seventeen questions about the prescription and the 12 items) are missing. If there is a sufficient number of
user’s perception of the device’s influence on ability to completed and valid responses, each subscale score is
be active were developed. The two first questions calculated. A subscale score is calculated only if there
concerned personal factors such as age and gender, are at least six valid scores on the Device subscale and
Scand J Occup Ther Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitaet Zuerich on 07/11/14

followed by a question concerning whether the device
was still in use. Two questions on environmental
factors concerned whether the device was used inside
or outside and during which part of the year. One
question addressed how often it was used (daily,
several times a week , several times a month , more
seldom ). The user was also asked to score the influence
of the device in daily living; ability to be active, to
socialize, to be mobile, feeling of safety, independence,
and self-esteem, with answer alternatives: positively,
not at all , or negatively. The next question addressed
For personal use only.
three valid scores on the Services subscale. Descriptive
statistics and non-parametric statistics were used,
Spearman rank correlation for analyses of associa-
tions and Mann
/Whitney U-test in order to compare
the subgroups of devices. All statistical analyses were
performed using the Statsoft Statistica 5.0. Approval
from the local ethics committee was obtained.
RESULTS
A total of 291 (73%) questionnaires were returned

the device’s influence on daily living (of no importance,
of some importance, of great importance ). Seven
questions concerned the prescribing process such as
the user’s opportunity to participate and to influence
the process, to receive and gather information as well
as training, and whether the user’s expectations were
fulfilled (on 3-graded scales from not at all */to a high
degree ). One question concerned help in adjusting the
device. There were also two questions concerning
follow-up: whether follow-up was performed (yes,
no ), and whether the user was satisfied with the
follow-up (yes, to some extent , no). In addition, space
was provided for the user’s comments.
These 17 questions were tested in 7 pilot interviews
with users of mobility devices. For this purpose, an
interview guide was developed. Participants were
asked whether the questions were easy to understand;
(Table I). Of these, 82 (21%) declined participation.
Included in the data analysis are 209 questionnaires,
giving a response rate of 52%. In all, 136 women and
73 men participated. More than half of the partici-
pants (54%) were 71 years or older, with a mean value
of 67.5 years, ranging from 26
/82 years (Table II).
The actual assistive device was still in use as
reported by 197 (95%) of the participants, with the
usage rate for wheelchairs by 84%, for powered
wheelchairs by 100%, and for walkers by 97% of the
participants. Reason for non-use was decreased
need. In all, 116 participants used their assistive
device on a daily basis (59%), several times a week
was reported by 26%, and several times a month or
less by 30 participants (15%). Usage environment
and at what season of the year the device was used
are presented in Table III. User perception regarding

Table II. Demographic data of participants by type of assistive device (numbers), n /209

Walker Wheelchair, manual Wheelchair, powered All

Gender:
Female 100 19 17 136
Male 35 25 13 73
Age:
Mean (range) 71 (38
/82) 61 (26
/79) 62 (27
/80) 68 (26
/82)
5/50 years 6 12 7 25
51
/60 11 5 4 20
61
/70 29 12 9 50
]/71 89 15 10 114
 146 E. Wressle & K. Samuelsson

Table III. Usage environment and time of year, number (%)

Walker n /135 Wheelchair n /44 Powerchair n /30

Usage environment:
Indoors 12 (9) 1 (2) 4 (13)
Outdoors 63 (47) 10 (23) 15 (50)
In-and outdoors 53 (39) 28 (64) 9 (30)
Dropouts 7 (5) 5 (11) 2 (7)
Time of year:
Summer 3 (2) 3 (7) 4 (13)
Winter 5 (4)
/
/
All year 113 (84) 32 (73) 22 (74)
Dropouts 14 (10) 9 (20) 4 (13)

how the assistive device affects their living circum- between men and women in any of the questions.
Scand J Occup Ther Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitaet Zuerich on 07/11/14

stances was mainly positive (Table IV). The majority
of the participants (71%) considered that the device
was of great importance in their daily life. User
opinions on prescription are presented in Table V,
with the majority of the participants (69%) reporting
that no follow-up had been performed. Adjustments
of the device were performed by the prescribing
person in 79% (for walker 78%, wheelchair 89%, and
powered wheelchair 72%). There was no difference
For personal use only.
Fulfilled expectations are positively correlated to a
prescription in which user needs and demands were
considered (R /0.33, pB/0.001), and also when
consensus between the user and the professional
was reached (R /0.31, pB/0.001). The user needs
and demands are positively associated with the
question on consensus (R /0.53, pB/0.001), as well
as with satisfaction with performed follow-up (R /
0.50, pB/0.001).

Table IV. User perception of device influence on daily living, number (%)

Walker (n /135) Wheelchair (n /44) Power chair (n /30)

Possibility to be active:
Positive 94 (70) 32 (73) 26 (87)
No influence 6 (5) 2 (5)
/
Negative 2 (1) 1 (2)
/
Dropouts 33 (24) 9 (20) 4 (13)
Possibility to socialize:
Positive 83 (61) 30 (68) 23 (77)
No influence 12 (9) 4 (9) 3 (10)
Negative 1 (1)
/
/
Dropouts 39 (29) 10 (23) 4 (13)
Possibility to be mobile:
Positive 97 (72) 33 (75) 26 (87)
No influence 5 (4) 2 (5)
/
Negative 4 (3)
/
/
Dropouts 29 (21) 9 (20) 4 (13)
Feeling safe/secure:
Positive 110 (81) 30 (68) 23 (77)
No influence 5 (4) 3 (7) 2 (7)
Negative
/ 1 (2) 1 (3)
Dropouts 20 (15) 10 (23) 4 (13)
Feeling of independence:
Positive 86 (64) 22 (50) 26 (87)
No influence 10 (7) 9 (20)
/
Negative 1 (1) 2 (5)
/
Dropouts 38 (28) 11 (25) 4 (13)
Self-esteem:
Positive 81 (60) 25 (58) 25 (84)
No influence 13 (10) 9 (20) 1 (3)
Negative 4 (3) 1 (2)
/
Dropouts 37 (27) 9 (20) 4 (13)
 User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices 147

Table V. User opinions on prescription process by type of device (%)

Walker Wheelchair Power chair Total

(n /135) (n /44) (n /30) (n /208)
User needs and demands considered
Yes 78 72 86 78
To some 19 28 14 20
extent 3
/
/ 2
No
Possibility to choose alternative device
Yes 29 34 21 29
To some 36 37 46 38
extent 35 29 32 33
No
Consensus between user and professional
Yes 71 72 67 71
Scand J Occup Ther Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitaet Zuerich on 07/11/14

To some 25 25 30 25
extent 4 3 4 4
No
Follow-up performed
Yes 28 49 21 31
No 72 51 79 69
Device lived up to expectations
Yes 85 75 86 83
To some 14 25 14 16
extent 1
/
/ 1
No
For personal use only.

User satisfaction with the assistive device and with
the service was high; the highest scores concerned
walkers (Table VI). The service subscale of the
QUEST was scored lower than satisfaction with the
device subscale for all three devices together
(pB/0.01). When divided into subgroups for each
type of assistive device, only scores for powered
wheelchairs had a statistically significant difference
between the subscales for device and service (pB/0.05),
with lower scores for the service part. The three most
important items identified by the users were the same
for walkers, wheelchairs, and powered wheelchairs and
they concerned safety, ease of use, and comfort. User
comments on the questionnaires were read through
but not strictly analysed. They concerned the impor-
tance of having the actual device or comments on the
characteristics of the device.
DISCUSSION
According to the users assistive devices seem to be of
great importance, with a high usage rate and a positive

Table VI. Satisfaction scores of QUEST 2.0 by device and total, mean values (SD). Maximum value /5

Walker (n/135) Wheelchair (n/44) Power chair (n /30) All devices (n /209)
Device:
Dimensions 4.52 (0.66) 4.26 (1.00) 4.52 (0.70) 4.46 (0.76)
Weight 4.18 (0.98) 3.94 (1.09) 4.17 (0.82) 4.13 (0.98)
Adjustment 4.13 (0.99) 4.15 (0.99) 4.04 (1.02) 4.12 (0.99)
Safety 4.56 (0.73) 4.27 (0.90) 4.39 (0.83) 4.47 (0.79)
Durability 4.49 (0.73) 4.31 (0.87) 4.26 (0.90) 4.42 (0.79)
Ease of use 4.55 (0.81) 4.00 (1.15) 4.67 (0.68) 4.45 (0.90)
Comfort 4.35 (0.82) 4.11 (1.02) 4.45 (0.87) 4.31 (0.88)
Effectiveness 4.57 (0.76) 4.33 (0.68) 4.50 (0.84) 4.51 (0.76)
Service:
Service delivery 4.31 (1.12) 4.24 (0.96) 4.00 (1.08) 4.24 (1.07)
Repairs & services 3.77 (1.40) 3.86 (1.22) 3.96 (1.15) 3.84 (1.29)
Professional services 4.08 (1.29) 3.63 (1.29) 4.08 (0.93) 3.97 (1.23)
Follow-up 3.54 (1.48) 3.45 (1.36) 3.52 (1.31) 3.51 (1.40)
 148 E. Wressle & K. Samuelsson
influence on daily living. Our study shows that most
users considered the device had a positive effect on
their ability to be active, to feel safe, and to be mobile.
The result also shows that the device had a positive
effect on the user’s feeling of safety, independence, and
self-esteem. These results are in agreement with a
study of effectiveness of assistive devices by Sonn [10].
The author found that a majority of the subjects
identified a feeling of safety or reduction of effort in
performing activities. Our findings show that the use
of a powered wheelchair has a high influence on daily
living and a maximal usage rate but also the lowest
rate on the question of whether follow-up was
performed or not. As the most costly device of the
Scand J Occup Ther Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitaet Zuerich on 07/11/14
devices included and probably the one with the most
time-consuming prescription process this fact should
lead to reflection on how to act. Prescribing a device
requires not only time and knowledge but also an
approach in which the user actively participates and is
seen as the customer. Taking user needs into con-
sideration and the grade of consensus between user
and prescribing therapist is shown to influence the
fulfilment of user expectations in a positive way. This
might be the result of a user-centred prescribing
process with a focus on collaboration and clearly
For personal use only.
defined user needs. This user-centred approach is
supported by the literature [3
/6, 8].
In our study, the majority of the users used the
device year-round, and the usage rate was as high as
95%. Similar results have been reported in other
studies [10, 13] as well as a lower usage rate [12].
A retrospective study by Chamberlain et al . [20] used
telephone interviews to examine long-term usefulness
of devices. The main finding was that 83% of the
devices were still in use after 2 years, with 69% being
used daily. The authors suggest that the devices
had become an integral part of daily life and had
also been prescribed appropriately. The use of assistive
devices related to mobility is more frequent compared
with other types of assistive devices [21]. In elderly
patients with stroke [22] the most dominant assistive
devices were used for bathing and walking, were
prescribed at low cost and had a high impact on the
individual’s daily life. Comments on the question-
naires were frequent, especially regarding walkers, and
concerned the importance of this device in daily
living.
Elderly people are frequent users of mobility
assistive devices: one-fifth of the Swedish population
at age 70 and almost half of the same population at
age 76 are using assistive devices [10]. Prescription and
adjustment is carried out both in hospitals and in the
community, mostly by occupational therapists and
physiotherapists. Assistive devices for persons with
disabilities are considered to play an important part in
the rehabilitation process, and are a major factor in
fostering and maintaining independent living, employ-
ment, education, and recreation. Mobility limitations
and environmental barriers are shown to be associated
with restricted participation outside the home [23].
Use of mobility assistive devices changes over
time, primarily due to decreased need or the switch
to another device [24] and reasons given for continuing
use are ongoing need, physical symptoms, and that the
device provides security, stability, and support. This
confirms our finding, as safety is one of the
most important items identified. The possibility to
choose an alternative device is limited in Sweden for
economic reasons and this is also obvious in the study
results.
Findings in our study show that the lowest user
satisfaction concerned follow-up: only 31% gave a
positive answer to this question when asked if follow-
up had occurred. The question on follow-up also
received the lowest mean value on the QUEST score,
3.51. Prescribing therapists need to address this issue
in clinical practice. Follow-ups in the home are
necessary as the need for assistive devices changes
over time [11]. To gain more knowledge in the field of
mobility assistive devices and their effect, regular
follow-ups are required, a step that seems to be
ignored in many cases [13]. Research is needed that
considers this important step in the prescribing
process.
Older adults appear to make rational judgements
about use or non-use according to Copolillo &
Prohaska [24], and therefore the authors support a
client-centred approach to examining device use.
One of the instruments used in this study, the QUEST
2.0, seems to be the only client-centred standardized
method that aims to measure user satisfaction
with assistive technology and service. It is a flexible
and generic instrument designed to be applied across a
wide range of disabilities and assistive technology
types. Results of several studies have shown
the instrument to be valid, reliable, and applicable
with good reproducibility [15
/19]. It has previously
been translated into Swedish and examined
linguistically. As QUEST 2.0 focuses on the character-
istics of the device and service, some additional
questions were constructed to reflect various aspects
of the prescribing process and users’ opinion concern-
ing how the mobility assistive device affects daily
living.
In our study, 22% of the respondents thought that
user needs and demands were not fully considered and
this leads to reflections on communication during
prescription. It is not possible to solve all needs and
demands by providing a device but this has to be
discussed and negotiated between user and therapist.

QUEST 2.0 has been used in a study on client
satisfaction with service delivery of assistive devices
for outdoor mobility [25]. The service delivery process
was measured by adding 7 items to the original 12-
item QUEST 2.0. One-fifth of the clients were not
completely satisfied with the degree to which their own
opinions were considered, for example it was stated
that they were not consulted at all or that it was no use
having an opinion [25]. Working with a client-centred
or user-centred approach might overcome these nega-
tive figures, as client-centred practice will lead to
improved client satisfaction and outcomes [26].
One limitation of this study is the low response rate,
especially concerning users of manual wheelchairs.
Scand J Occup Ther Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitaet Zuerich on 07/11/14
Probably wheelchair users have more functional lim-
itations as well as cognitive limitations compared with
users of walkers, and this might have influenced their
ability or willingness to answer the questionnaire. An
analysis of the dropouts would have been useful but
taking into consideration the practical aspects it was
not possible to do this. The result might be influenced
if, for example, the most unsatisfied users did not
participate. The high age, especially among users of
walkers, might have influenced the numbers of ques-
For personal use only.
tionnaires included in the analysis. A large proportion
of users declined to participate, 21% for walkers and
23% for manual wheelchairs, an option given in the
letter to the user. Those users who did not respond at
all or declined participation may not be used to
answering postal questionnaires, or may have cogni-
tive deficits, vision problems, or other reasons not to
participate. A reminder could have resulted in a higher
response rate. If data had been collected through
interviews instead of a postal questionnaire this might
also have increased the response rate, but this is a
method that is not applicable for samples of the size of
400 users. Interview is an appropriate method for the
therapist in performing follow-ups on individual users.
Information on the users’ health, functional limita-
tions, or type of housing would have made further
analysis possible. Interpretations are to be made with
caution as confounding factors might have affected
the result. However, the findings give a clear hint as to
what prescribing therapists have to improve, i.e.
mainly follow-up.
The need for efficient devices and effective processes
for prescribing and delivery/service has increased with
the paradigm shift in health care and social service. A
change in emphasis from people as a group to
individuals influences the development of more ad-
justable assistive devices in order to fulfil individual
needs and demands [5]. Although the effect of a
mobility assistive device might be obvious compared
with many other rehabilitation interventions, knowl-
User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices 149
edge of the effect and quality of this intervention is
limited.
Environmental factors can facilitate or limit perfor-
mance, including not only the physical environment
but also the social and attitudinal environment in
which people live and conduct their lives [6]. Barriers
in a person’s environment limit function and include
such aspects as inaccessible environments, lack of
assistive technology, and people’s negative attitudes.
A facilitating factor can be the availability of relevant
assistive devices prescribed in collaboration between
user and therapist and based on user needs. More
research is needed on assistive devices and their
influence on participation in society. There is no
such instrument giving us the answer to all existing
questions.
Users’ opinions on the prescribing process for
mobility assistive devices and satisfaction with the
device and service have been examined and analysed in
this study. The majority of users reported that follow-
up had not been performed. Thus, in this area there is
room for quality improvement. The effect of the
mobility assistive device on daily living was positive
in most aspects. However, it should be noted that in
variables considering more psychosocial aspects, such
as self-esteem, possibility of socialization, and feeling
of independence, there are less positive answers. The
large dropout rate might have influenced the result.
Future studies in this field should include more
aspects of usability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank those who participated in
this study. Grants from the Health Research Council in the
South-East of Sweden made this study possible.
REFERENCES
1. Hjälpmedelsinstitutet. Statistik från Hjälpmedelscentra-
ler 2003 [available at: URL:http://www.hi.se/statistik/
default.shtm].
2. Gelderblom GJ, de Witte LP. The assessment of assistive
technology outcomes effects and costs. Technology and
Disability 2002; 14: 91
/4.
3. Kleinpell RM. Whose outcomes? Patients, providers or
payers? Nurs Clin North Am 1997; 32: 513
/20.
4. Persson J. Evaluation of assistive devices. In: Vang J,
Kristenson M, eds. Outcome measuring. Outcome
measures make sense; do they make a difference? Paper
from the Linköping meeting. Stockholm: Spris förlag,
1997.
5. Scherer MJ. The change in emphasis from people to
person: introduction to the special issue on assistive
technology. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 1
/4.
6. WHO. International classification of functioning, dis-
ability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization,
2001.
 150 E. Wressle & K. Samuelsson
7. Stucki G, Cieza A, Ewert T, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S,
Bedirhan Üstün T. Application of the International
Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
(ICF) in clinical practice. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24:
281
/2.
8. Scherer MJ. Matching person & technology. Webster,
NY: Institute for Matching Person & Technology, 1998.
9. Kraskowsky LH, Finlayson M. Factors affecting older
adults’ use of adaptive equipment: review of the
literature. Am J Occup Ther 2001; 55: 303
/10.
10. Sonn U. Longitudinal studies of dependence in daily life
activities among elderly persons. Scand J Rehabil Med
1996; 34 (Suppl): 2
/35.
11. Sonn U, Davegardh H, Lindskog A-C, Steen B. The use
and effectiveness of assistive devices in an elderly urban
population. Aging Clin Exp Res 1996; 8: 176
/83.
12. Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology
Scand J Occup Ther Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitaet Zuerich on 07/11/14
abandonment. Assist Technol 1993; 5: 36
/45.
13. Kohn JG, LeBlanc M, Mortola P. Measuring quality
and performance of assistive technology: results of a
prospective monitoring program. Assist Technol 1994; 6:
120
/5.
14. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec User
Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology */
QUEST 2.0 */an outcome measure for assistive technol-
ogy devices. Webster, NY: Institute for Matching Person
& Technology, 2000.
15. Wessels RD, De Witte LP. Reliability and validity of the
Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types
For personal use only.
of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 267
/72.
16. Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, Arnold DL, Wolfson
C. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec
User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technol-
ogy (QUEST 2.0) for adults with Multiple Sclerosis.
Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 21
/30.
17. Demers L, Wessels R, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B, de
Witte P. Key dimensions of client satisfaction with
assistive technology: a cross-validation of a Canadian
measure in the Netherlands. Scand J Rehabil Med 2001;
33: 1
/5.
18. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Item analysis of
the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assis-
tive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 2000; 12: 96
/
105.
19. Demers L, Ska B, Giroux F, Weiss-Lambrou R. Stability
and reproducibility of the Quebec user Evaluation of
Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). J
Rehabil Outcome Measures 1999; 3: 42
/52.
20. Chamberlain E, Evans N, Neighbour K, Hughes J.
Equipment: is it the answer? An audit of equipment
provision. Br J Occup Ther 2001; 64: 595
/600.
21. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec User
Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology
(QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Tech-
nology and Disability 2002; 14: 101
/5.
22. Gosman-Hedström G, Claesson L, Blomstrand C.
Assistive devices in elderly people after stroke: a long-
itudinal, randomized study */the Göteborg 70/ Stroke
Study. SJOT 2002; 9: 109
/18.
23. Hoenig H, Landerman LR, Shipp KM, George L.
Activity restriction among wheelchair users. JAGS
2003; 51: 1244
/51.
24. Copolillo A, Prohaska TR. Older adults’ mobility device
use after in-patient rehabilitation. Intention, actual
use, and need. Phys Occup Ther Geriatrics 2001; 19:
35
/48.
25. Jedeloo S, de Witte LP, Linssen BAJ, Schrijvers AJP.
Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive
technology for outdoor mobility. Disabil Rehabil 2002;
24: 550
/7.
26. Law M. Client-centred occupational therapy. Thorofare,
NJ: SLACK, 1998.
Address for correspondence :
Ewa Wressle, PhD MScOT
University Hospital
Geriatric Clinic 011
SE-581 85 Linköping
Sweden
Tel: /46 13 22 41 10
Fax: /46 13 22 73 89
E-mail: Ewa.Wressle@lio.se