Background.Increasing choices in assistive technology have made the process of procuring a wheelchair more complex and challenging. Purpose.To explore the intricacies of the procurement process from the perspectives of clients and therapists. Methods.Thirty-four participants were interviewed, including 13 wheelchair prescribers, 14 wheelchair users, and 7 wheelchair associates (family members and caregivers). Findings.Analysis revealed five main themes. “Who decides? ” described varying degrees of client involvement in the procurement process. “Expert knowledge” reflected the expert knowledge that all parties possessed. “Form versus function” captured the primary and, at times, conflicting outcomes that participants wanted to achieve. “Fitting in” depicted the environmental factors that affected wheelchair procurement. “(Re)solutions” illustrated strategies that participants felt improved the process. Implications.This study reveals clients' experiences with wheelchair procurement, identifies potential issues therapists may encounter, and suggests possible remedies they might consider when prescribing wheelchairs within a client-centred framework.
BeckerM. H. (1974). The health belief model and personal health behaviour. Health Education Monographs, 2, 324–473.
2.
BrandtÅ., IwarssonS., & StåhleA. (2004). Older people's use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 36, 70–77.
3.
BrienzaD. M., KargP. E., GeyerM. J., KelseyS., & TreflerE. (2001). The relationship between pressure ulcer incidence and buttock-seat cushion interface pressure in at-risk elderly wheelchair users. Archives of Physical Medicine, 82, 529–533.
4.
BuryM. (1982). Chronic illness as biographical disruption. Sociology of Health & Illness, 4, 167–182.
5.
CahillS. E., & EgglestonR. (1995). Reconsidering the stigma of physical disability: Wheelchair use and public kindness. The Sociological Quarterly, 36, 681–698.
6.
CalderC. J., & KirbyR. L. (1990). Fatal wheelchair-related accidents in the United States. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 69, 184–190.
7.
Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. (2007). Enabling occupation II: Advancing an occupational therapy vision for health, well-being, & justice through occupation. Ottawa, ON: CAOT Publications ACE.
8.
CraneB. A., HolmM. B., HobsonD., RoryC. A., ReedM. P., & StadelmeierS. (2004). Development of a consumer-driven wheelchair seating discomfort assessment tool (WcS-DAT). International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 27, 85–90.
9.
CurtinM., & JaramazovicE. (2001). Occupational therapists views and perceptions of evidence-based practice. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 214–222.
10.
CushmanL. A., & SchererM. J. (1996). Measuring the relationship of assistive technology use, functional status over time, and consumer-therapist perceptions of ATs. Assistive Technology, 8, 103–109.
11.
DeweyA., Rice-OxleyM., & DeanT. (2004). A qualitative study comparing the experiences of tilt-in-space wheelchair use and conventional wheelchair use by clients severely disabled with multiple sclerosis. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 65–74.
12.
FalardeauM., & DurandM. J. (2002). Negotiation-centred versus client-centred: Which approach should be used?Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69, 135–142.
13.
GageM., & PolatajkoH. (1995). Naming practice: The case for the term client-driven. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 115–118.
14.
HammellK. W., CarpenterC., & DyckI. (2000). Using qualitative research: A practical introduction for occupational and physical therapists. Toronto, ON: Churchill Livingstone.
15.
HammersleyM., & AtkinsonP. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. New York: Routledge.
16.
HardingS. (1998). Subjectivity, experience, and knowledge: An epistemology from/for rainbow coalition politics. In RogersM. F. (Ed.), Contemporary feminist theory. A text/reader (pp. 97–108). Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill.
17.
HoenigH., LandermanL. R., ShippK. M., & GeorgeL. (2003). Activity restriction among wheelchair users. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51, 1244–1251.
18.
ImrieR. (2001). Barriered and bounded places and the spatialities of disability. Urban Studies, 38, 231–237.
19.
JörgF., BoeijeH. R., & SchrijversA. J. P. (2005). Professionals assessing clients' needs and eligibility for electric scooters in the Netherlands: Both gatekeepers and clients' advocates. British Journal of Social Work, 35, 823–842.
20.
KitchinR. (1998). “Out of place”, “knowing one's place”: Space, power and the exclusion of disabled people. Disability & Society, 13, 343–356.
21.
KittelA., Di MarcoA., & StewartH. (2002). Factors influencing the decision to abandon manual wheelchairs for three individuals with a spinal cord injury. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 106–114.
22.
LawM. (2002). Evidence-based rehabilitation: A guide to practice. Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
23.
LenkerJ. A., & PaquetV. L. (2003). A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology, 15 (1), 1–15.
24.
Miller-PolgarJ. (2006). Assistive technology as an enabler to occupation: What's old is new again. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73, 199–205.
25.
Morgan-EllisJ., AlexanderV. D., CroninA., DickinsonM., FieldingJ., SleneyJ., et al. (2006). Triangulation and integration: Processes, claims and implications. Qualitative Research, 6 (1), 45–59.
26.
MortensonW. B., & DyckI. (2006). Power and client-centred practice: An insider exploration of occupational therapists' experiences. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73, 261–271.
27.
MortensonW. B., MillerW. C., BoilyJ., SteeleB., OdellL., CrawfordE. M., et al. (2005). Perceptions of power mobility use and safety within residential facilities. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, 142–152.
28.
MortensonW.B., MillerW. C., & Miller-PolgarJ. (2007). Measuring wheelchair intervention outcomes: Development of the wheelchair outcome measure. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2, 275–285.
NarayanU. (1998). The project of feminist epistemology: Perspectives from a non-western feminist. In RogersM. F. (Ed.), Contemporary feminist theory. A text/reader (pp. 82–89). Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill.
31.
OliverM. (1990). The politics of disablement: A sociological approach. London: St. Martin's Press.
32.
SapeyB. H., StewartJ. H., & DonaldsonG. H. (2005). Increases in wheelchair use and perceptions of disablement. Disability and Society, 20, 489–505.
33.
SmithD. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
34.
SumsionT., & SmythG. (2000). Barriers to client-centredness and their resolution. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 15–21.
35.
TownsendE. (1998). Good intentions overruled: A critique of empowerment in the routine organization of mental health services. Toronto: ON: University of Toronto Press.
36.
WressleE. H., & SamuelssonK. H. (2004). User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 11, 143–150.
