1 / 5

Aim

Power mobility with collision avoidance for older adults: User, caregiver, and prescriber perspectives. Rosalie H. Wang, BSc (OT), PhD; Alexandra Korotchenko, BHK, MA, PhD(c); Laura Hurd Clarke, MSW, PhD; W. Ben Mortenson, BSc (OT), MSc, PhD; Alex Mihailidis, PhD, PEng. Aim

odell
Télécharger la présentation

Aim

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Power mobility with collision avoidance for older adults: User, caregiver, and prescriber perspectives Rosalie H. Wang, BSc (OT), PhD; Alexandra Korotchenko, BHK, MA, PhD(c); Laura Hurd Clarke, MSW, PhD; W. Ben Mortenson, BSc (OT), MSc, PhD; Alex Mihailidis, PhD, PEng

  2. Aim • Explore user, caregiver, and prescriber views on power mobility devices (PMDs) with collision avoidance (CA) technology. • Relevance • CA technology can facilitate safer mobility for older PMD users with physical, sensory, and cognitive impairments. • Little is known about consumers’ perceptions of CA.

  3. Method • Qualitative research approach was used and thematic analysis was applied to analyze in-depth, semistructured interview data from: • 29 PMD users (aged 50+). • 5 caregivers. • 10 occupational therapists. Example of intelligent power wheelchair.

  4. Results • Data analysis identified 3 themes: • Useful situations or contexts. • Driving backward, avoiding dynamic obstacles, negotiating outdoor barriers, and learning PMD use. • Technologydesign issues and real life application. • Context awareness, reliability, and user interface specifications. • Appropriatenessof collision avoidance technology for a variety of users.

  5. Conclusion • Most participants supported CA technology. • Saw benefits for current users and users with visual impairments. • Felt it might be unsuitable for people with significant cognitive impairments. • Some participants voiced concerns regarding injury risk. • Users expressed desire to maintain driving autonomy, which supports development of collaboratively controlled systems.

More Related