The use of MSCs by adults with SCI is complex. MSC performance varies across activities, and during interactions between the user, the MSC, other assistive technologies, assistance and physical environments. Future studies should explore service delivery processes and develop validated clinical assessment instruments and outcome measures for MSC provision. Implications for Rehabilitation Mobile shower commode use is complex, involving nine distinct activities and three types of routines. Mobile shower commodes used by Australian adults with SCI are individualised to users and include customisations and custom-made components. Trialling individualised mobile shower commodes prior to funding is problematic and not reflected in assistive service delivery models. Validated clinical instruments for assessing and selecting mobile shower commode features are needed.

The eMAST 1.0 tests usability of MSCs from the perspective of adults with SCI and may be used to solicit feedback during MSC design, assessment, prescription, and ongoing use. Further studies assessing the eMAST's psychometric properties, including studies with users of MSCs, are needed.

Evidence reviewed was of low methodological quality and lacking in validated instruments to guide clinical practice. Further high-quality research is needed to identify bathing, showering and personal hygiene tasks affecting mobile shower commodes use and to develop validated clinical assessment tools. Performance testing to published standards is also needed.

Developing research capacity is recognised as an important endeavour. However, little is known about the current research culture, capacity and supports for staff working in community-based health settings. A structured survey of Division of Community Health staff was conducted using the research capacity tool. The survey was disseminated by email and in paper format. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. In total, 109 usable responses were received, giving a response rate of 26%. Respondents were predominately nurses (n=71, 65.7%), with ~50% reporting post-graduate vocational qualifications. The highest levels of skills or organisational success were in using evidence to plan, promote and guide clinical practice. Most participants were unsure of organisational and team level skills and success at generating research. Few reported recent experience in research-generating activities. Barriers to undertaking research included lack of skills, time and access to external support and funding. Lack of skills and success in accessing external funding and resources to protect research time or to 'buy-in' technical expertise appeared to exacerbate these barriers. Community health staff have limited capacity to generate research with current levels of skill, funding and time. Strategies to increase research capacity should be informed by knowledge of clinicians' research experience and interests, and target development of skills to generate research. Resources and funding are needed at the organisational and team levels to overcome the significant barriers to research generation reported.