Usability of mobile shower commodes for adults with spinal cord injury

Abstract

Introduction

This paper describes the usability of mobile shower commodes for adults with spinal cord injury, as measured by the new electronic Mobile Shower Commode Assessment Tool Version 1.0 (eMAST 1.0).

Method

A retrospective analysis of data collected for a cross-sectional validation study with adults aged 18 years or older, living with spinal cord injury, who use mobile shower commodes for toileting and/or showering (n = 32), was conducted. Usability was measured using the eMAST 1.0. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using directed content analysis.

Results

Overall usability on both the features and performance subscales was rated as high to very high. Ratings of very low to low usability were reported for portability/foldability/packability (41%, n = 13), mobile shower commode stability (25%, n = 8), positioning and repositioning (25%, n = 8), seat cushioning (25%, n = 8), and lower leg supports (22%, n = 7). Items receiving the highest number of qualitative comments included lower leg supports, seating, propelling and manoeuvring, cleaning and maintenance, and stability.

Conclusion

Results across the eMAST 1.0’s subscales showed high to very high usability. However, analysis of individual items and qualitative comments showed specific areas of reduced usability for individual users. Item-level responses and qualitative comments suggest research is urgently needed in the areas of stability, portability, durability, and seating. Studies exploring use of the eMAST 1.0 during initial provision, and after short- and long-term mobile shower commode use, are also needed.

Keywords

Activities of daily living spinal cord injuries usability assessment rehabilitation self-care

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abraham

Davidson

Johnson

(2013) Adaptation planning guideline and constrained outline for shower chairs and other four-caster vehicles. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 76(10): 443–451.

Arthanat

Bauer

Lenker

(2007) Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 2(4): 235–248.

Arthanat

Nochajski

Lenker

(2009) Measuring usability of assistive technology from a multicontextual perspective: The case of power wheelchairs. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 63(6): 751–764.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011) 1270055006C190 Postcode 2012 to Remoteness Area 2011, Datacube: 1270.0.55.006 - Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Correspondences, July 2011. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/1270.0.55.006July%202011?OpenDocument (accessed 29 April 2016).

Berg Rice

(2008) Human factors in medical rehabilitation equipment: Product development and usability testing. In: Jacobs

(eds) Ergonomics for Therapists, St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby, pp. 151–172.

Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine (1998) Clinical practice guidelines: Neurogenic bowel management in adults with spinal cord injury. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 21(3): 248–293.

Cooper

(2009) Wheeled mobility and manipulation technologies. The Bridge 39(1): 13–20.

Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R and Ska B (2002) The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability 14(3): 101–105.

Evans J (2006) The effects of fluids on the mechanical properties of polyurethane wheelchair foams. Undergraduate thesis, School of Engineering Systems, Queensland University of Technology.

10.

Ford S, Keay A and Skipper D (2014) Occupational Therapy Interventions for Adults with a Spinal Cord Injury – An Overview. Available at: http://www.aci.health.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/155191/Occupational-Therapy-Interventions.pdf (accessed 29 April 2016).

11.

Friederich A, Bernd T and De Witte L (2010) Methods for the selection of assistive technology in neurological rehabilitation practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 17(4): 308–318.

12.

Friesen

Russell

Theodoros

(2015a) Testing usability of mobile shower commodes for adults with spinal cord injury: Research method and overview. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 217: 98–105.

13.

Friesen

Theodoros

Russell

(2013) Clinical assessment, design and performance testing of mobile shower commodes for adults with spinal cord injury: An exploratory review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 8(4): 267–274.

14.

Friesen

Theodoros

Russell

(2015b) Development, construction, and content validation of a questionnaire to test mobile shower commode usability. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation 21(1): 77–86.

15.

Friesen

Theodoros

Russell

(2015c) Use, performance and features of mobile shower commodes: Perspectives of adults with spinal cord injury and expert clinicians. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 10(1): 38–45.

16.

Friesen

Theodoros

Russell

(2016) An instrument to measure mobile shower commode usability: The eMAST 1.0. Journal of Assistive Technologies 10(3): 153–161.

17.

Harvey

Chu

Bowden

(2012) How much equipment is prescribed for people with spinal cord injury in Australia, do they use it and are they satisfied 1 year later? Spinal Cord 50(9): 676–681.

18.

Heaton

Bamford

(2001) Assessing the outcomes of equipment and adaptations: Issues and approaches. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 64(7): 346–356.

19.

Hsieh

H-F

Shannon

(2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277–1288.

20.

Iwarsson

Ståhl

(2003) Accessibility, usability and universal design – Positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disability and Rehabilitation 25(2): 57–66.

21.

Lenker

Harris

Taugher

(2013) Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 8(5): 373–380.

22.

Lenker

Scherer

Fuhrer

(2005) Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assistive Technology 17(1): 7–22.

23.

Magnier

Thomann

Villeneuve

(2012) Methods for designing assistive devices extracted from 16 case studies in the literature. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing 2(2): 93–100.

24.

Malassigné

Nelson

Amerson

(1993) Toward the design of a new bowel care chair for the spinal cord injured: A pilot study. SCI Nursing 10(3): 84–90.

25.

Middleton

McCormick

Engel

(2008) Issues and challenges for development of a sustainable service model for people with spinal cord injury living in rural regions. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 89(10): 1941–1947.

26.

Nelson

Malassigné

Amerson

(1993) Descriptive study of bowel care practices and equipment in spinal cord injury. SCI Nursing 10(2): 65–67.

27.

Norton L (2010) Injury research and statistics series Number 52: Spinal cord injury, Australia 2007–08 (INJCAT 128). Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW).

28.

Solo

(2006) Shower commode pressure analysis and seat design. Undergraduate thesis, School of Mechanical Engineering, Queensland University of Technology.

29.

Spinal Outreach Team (2013) Mobile Shower Commode (MSC) Assessment & Prescription Tool for Therapists. Available at: http://www.health.qld.gov.au/qscis/documents/msc-assess.pdf (accessed 29 April 2015).

30.

Titus L, Moir S, Casalino A, et al. (2014) Wheeled mobility and seating equipment following spinal cord injury. Available at: http://www.scireproject.com/rehabilitation-evidence/wheelchairs-and-seating-equipment/seating-equipment-wheelchairs (accessed 29 April 2016).

31.

von Elm

Altman

Egger

(2007) Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. British Medical Journal 335(7624): 806–808.

32.

Wessels

Willems

de Witte

(1996) How to select a method to evaluate usability of assistive devices. Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences 9(2): 53–57.

33.

Worobey

Oyster

Nemunaitis

(2012) Increases in wheelchair breakdowns, repairs, and adverse consequences for people with traumatic spinal cord injury. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 91(6): 463–469.