Feasibility of a Systematic, Comprehensive, One-to-One Training (SCOOT) program for new scooter users: study protocol for a randomized control trial

Mortenson, W. Ben; Jang, Sharon; Goldsmith, Charlie H.; Clarke, Laura Hurd; Hobson, Sandra; Emery, Richelle

doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1963-y

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Collisions involved cars, trucks, or buses in 67% of cases ( Figure 4a) and predominantly occurred at junctions or intersections (70%; Figure A1.6d). The findings are (partly) in line with reports from previous studies (Cassell and Clapperton 2006;Gibson et al 2011;LaBan and Nabity 2010;Mortenson et al 2017). Gibson et al (2011) reported that most MMSrelated fatalities were the result of collisions with a motor vehicle, and the most common cause of death was a head injury.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Human factors are important to study because PMD drivers are a multifaceted subgroup of VRUs, which may contribute to an increased complexity in injury prevention strategies. Previous research has highlighted the importance of proper training in managing the PMD (Cassell and Clapperton 2006;Cordes et al 2018;Jancey et al 2013;Jannink et al 2008;Mortenson and Kim 2016;Mortenson et al 2017;Murphy et al 2014;Nitz 2008;Opalek et al 2009;Toosizadeh et al 2014). Because many PMD drivers experience difficulties maintaining an upright seated posture when subjected to external forces, seat belts and leg rests have been strongly recommended (Cooper et al 1998;Corfman et al 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Acute injuries resulting from accidents involving powered mobility devices (PMDs)—Development and outcomes of PMD-related accidents in Sweden

Carlsson

Lundälv

2019

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Powered mobility devices (PMDs) are commonly used as aids for older people and people with disabilities, subgroups of vulnarable road users (VRUs) who are rarely noted in traffic safety contexts. However, the problem of accidents involving PMD drivers has been reported in many countries where these vehicles have become increasingly popular. The aim of this study is to extract and analyze national PMD-related accident and injury data reported to the Swedish Traffic Accident Data Acquisition (STRADA) database. The results will provide valuable insight into the risks and obstacles that PMD drivers are exposed to in the traffic environment and may contribute to improving the mobility of this group in the long term. Methods: The current study is based on data from 743 accidents and 998 persons. An analysis was performed on a subset of data (N ¼ 301) in order to investigate the development of accidents over a period of 10 years. Thereafter, each accident in the whole data set was registered as either single (N ¼ 427) or collision (N ¼ 315). Results: The results show that there was a 3-fold increase in the number of PMD-related accidents reported to STRADA during the period 2007-2016. With regard to single accidents, collisions, as well as fatalities, the injury statistics were dominated by males. Single accidents were more common than collisions (N ¼ 427 and N ¼ 316, respectively) and the level of injury sustained in each type of accident is on par. The vast majority of single accidents resulted in the PMD driver impacting the ground (87%), due to either PMD turnover (71%) or the driver falling out of the PMD (16%). The reason for many of the single accidents was a difference in ground level (34%, typically a curb). Cars, trucks, or buses were involved in 67% of collision events; these occured predominantly at junctions or intersections (70%). Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3þ injuries were dominated by hip and head injuries in both single accidents and collision events. Conclusions: The present study shows that further research on PMD accidents is required, with regard to both single accidents and collision events. To ensure that appropriate decisions are made, future work should follow up on injury trends and further improve the quality of PDMrelated accident data. Improved vehicle stability and design, increased usage of safety equipment, proper training programs, effective maintenance services, and development of a supporting infrastructure would contribute to increased safety for PMD drivers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute injuries resulting from accidents involving powered mobility devices (PMDs)—Development and outcomes of PMD-related accidents in Sweden

Carlsson

Lundälv

2019

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Seven of the ongoing studies (Dean, 2021;Edgren, 2019;Haeger, 2022;Nct, 2015;Nct, 2020a;Salbach, 2019) are exploring outdoor mobility interventions in older adults. Two studies Nct, 2020) are exploring outdoor mobility interventions after stroke, one in people with Parkinson's Disease (Nct, 2018a), one in mobility scooter users (Mortenson, 2017) and one in a general population of adults living with long-term disabilities (Nct, 2018). The specific type of outdoor mobility interventions could not be described due to limited descriptions in trial registries and protocols of most of the ongoing studies.…”

Section: Ongoing Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to improve outdoor mobility among people living with disabilities: A systematic review

Ringsten,

Ivanic,

Iwarsson

et al. 2024

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAround 15% of the global population live with some form of disabilities and experience worse health outcomes, less participation in the community and are part of fewer activities outside the home. Outdoor mobility interventions aim to improve the ability to move, travel and orient outside the home and could influence the number of activities outside the home, participation and quality of life. However, outdoor mobility interventions may also lead to harm like falls or injuries or have unforeseen effects which could lead to mortality or hospitalization.ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy of interventions aiming to improve outdoor mobility for adults living with disabilities and to explore if the efficacy varies between different conditions and different intervention components.Search MethodsStandard, extensive Campbell search methods were used, including a total of 12 databases searched during January 2023, including trial registries.Selection CriteriaOnly randomized controlled trials were included, focusing on people living with disabilities, comparing interventions to improve outdoor mobility to control interventions as well as comparing different types of interventions to improve outdoor mobility.Data Collection and AnalysisStandard methodological procedures expected by Campbell were used. The following important outcomes were 1. Activity outside the home; 2. Engagement in everyday life activities; 3. Participation; 4. Health‐related Quality of Life; 5. Major harms; 6. Minor harms. The impact of the interventions was evaluated in the shorter (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) after starting the intervention. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), and standardized mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias 2‐tool and the GRADE‐framework were used to assess the certainty of the evidence.Main ResultsThe screening comprised of 12.894 studies and included 22 studies involving 2.675 people living with disabilities and identified 12 ongoing studies. All reported outcomes except one (reported in one study, some concerns of bias) had overall high risk of bias. Thirteen studies were conducted in participants with disabilities due to stroke, five studies with older adults living with disabilities, two studies with wheelchair users, one study in participants with disabilities after a hip fracture, and one study in participants with cognitive impairments.Skill training interventions versus control interventions (16 studies)The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of skill training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility among all people living with disabilities both in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life activities among people with disabilities in the shorter term (RR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.84; I2 = 7%; RD: 0.15; 95% CI: −0.02 to 0.32; I2 = 71%; 692 participants; three studies; low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain in the longer term, based on very low certainty evidence. Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with disabilities due to cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter term (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.81; I2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve health‐related quality of life in the shorter term (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.88; I2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence).Physical training interventions versus control interventions (five studies)The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of physical training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for: Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.61; I2 = NA; 228 participants; one study; low certainty evidence) and longer term (≥7 months) (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.54; I2 = NA; 216 participants; one study; low certainty evidence).Comparison of different outdoor mobility interventions (one study)The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of outdoor mobility interventions of different lengths in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. No studies explored the efficacy of other types of interventions.Authors’ ConclusionsTwenty‐two studies of interventions to improve outdoor mobility for people living with disabilities were identified, but the evidence still remains uncertain about most benefits and harms of these interventions, both in the short‐ and long term. This is primarily related to risk of bias, small underpowered studies and limited reporting of important outcomes for people living with disabilities. For people with disabilities, skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life in the short term, and improve activity outside the home and health‐related quality of life for people with cognitive impairments in the short term. Still, this is based on low certainty evidence from few studies and should be interpreted with caution. One study with low certainty evidence suggests that physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the short term. In addition, the effect sizes across all outcomes were considered small or trivial, and could be of limited relevance to people living with disabilities. The evidence is currently uncertain if there are interventions that can improve outdoor mobility for people with disabilities, and can improve other important outcomes, while avoiding harms. To guide decisions about the use of interventions to improve outdoor mobility, future studies should use more rigorous design and report important outcomes for people with disabilities to reduce the current uncertainty.

show abstract

“…Occupational therapists could take the initiative to collaborate with other key stakeholders, including mobility scooter users, vendors, and governmental agencies to Currently, studies show that no evidence-based training programme is available [15,39,40]. However, only one study [41] showed that having a full-scale environmental simulation would be beneficial in the identification of usability barriers in the community.…”

Section: Implications For Occupational Therapy Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of mobility scooter on occupational participation among older adults in Singapore: an exploratory study

Lim

Chia

Ong

et al. 2022

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE With rapid ageing, the use of mobility scooters by community-dwelling older adults with mobility limitations has been increasingly prevalent in Singapore. Their experiences in using mobility scooters remain unclear. This study aimed to explore the impact of mobility scooters on occupational performance and engagement among elderly Singaporeans. MATERIALS AND METHODSMobility scooter users were recruited via purposive and snowballing sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in English or Mandarin via phone call or face-to-face and audio-recorded with permission. Interviews were transcribed verbatim in their original language and translated to English (when applicable) for thematic analysis. RESULTSTwelve eligible participants (mean age: 75) completed the interviews. They were predominantly female Chinese with 7 receiving training from occupational therapists (OT). Four main themes emerged from interviews describing their experiences of using mobility scooters: factors of decision-making in getting a mobility scooter, enhanced occupational participation with the use of the mobility scooter, enablers and barriers to community participation. Despite having barriers (e.g. environmental inaccessibility, negative encounters with the public), older adults with mobility limitations still had positive experiences using mobility scooters to engage in valued occupations.CONCLUSIONS This study highlights the benefits of mobility scooters in supporting users' occupational performance and engagement in the community. Continual efforts are required from all stakeholders to provide an accessible environment and improve societal attitudes to further support the mobility scooter users.

show abstract

Feasibility of a Systematic, Comprehensive, One-to-One Training (SCOOT) program for new scooter users: study protocol for a randomized control trial

Cited by 8 publications

References 41 publications

Acute injuries resulting from accidents involving powered mobility devices (PMDs)—Development and outcomes of PMD-related accidents in Sweden

Acute injuries resulting from accidents involving powered mobility devices (PMDs)—Development and outcomes of PMD-related accidents in Sweden

Interventions to improve outdoor mobility among people living with disabilities: A systematic review

The impact of mobility scooter on occupational participation among older adults in Singapore: an exploratory study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About