Background
Methods
Study design
Sample
Data analysis
Results
Participants
Wheelchair Users (n = 354) | Frequency | Percent |
---|---|---|
Gender
| ||
- Male | 194 | 54.8% |
- Female | 160 | 45.2% |
Age
| ||
18-24 | 17 | 4.8% |
25-34 | 59 | 16.7% |
35-44 | 70 | 19.8% |
45-54 | 93 | 26.3% |
55-64 | 72 | 20.3% |
65 and above | 43 | 12.1% |
Country
| ||
- Canada | 197 | 55.6% |
- United States | 129 | 36.4% |
- Other | 27 | 7.6% |
Diagnosis
| ||
- SCI (paraplegia) | 130 | 36.7% |
- SCI (quadriplegia) | 87 | 24.6% |
- MS | 30 | 8.5% |
- CP | 24 | 6.8% |
- Muscular Dystrophy | 19 | 5.4% |
- Post-polio | 13 | 3.7% |
- Congenital SCI | 12 | 3.4% |
- Stroke | 10 | 2.8% |
- Other | 32 | 9.0% |
Hours per day using a wheelchair
| ||
0–4 hours | 35 | 9.9% |
5–8 hours | 40 | 11.3% |
9–12 hours | 86 | 24.3% |
12+ hours | 193 | 54.5% |
Previous use of an exoskeleton
| ||
No | 328 | 95.6% |
Yes | 15 | 4.4% |
Healthcare Professionals (n = 127)
| Frequency | Percent |
Gender
| ||
- Male | 44 | 34.6% |
- Female | 83 | 65.4% |
Country
| ||
- Canada | 76 | 59.8% |
- United States | 41 | 32.3% |
- Other | 10 | 7.9% |
Profession
| ||
Occupational Therapist | 25 | 19.7% |
Physiotherapist | 21 | 16.5% |
Equipment vendor | 13 | 10.3% |
Nurse | 9 | 7.1% |
Support staff | 8 | 6.3% |
Rehabilitation assistant | 7 | 5.5% |
Rehabilitation engineer | 7 | 5.5% |
Clinic director/manager | 6 | 4.7% |
Assistive technology specialist* | 5 | 3.9% |
Research professional | 5 | 3.9% |
Physician | 3 | 2.4% |
Orthotist | 2 | 1.6% |
Other** | 16 | 12.6% |
Previous use of an exoskeleton
| ||
No | 108 | 93.1% |
Yes | 8 | 6.9% |
Reasons to use an exoskeleton
Design features
Exoskeleton design features | Mean importance | Standard deviation | Median importance |
---|---|---|---|
Minimizes risk of falling | 4.54 | 0.828 | 5 |
Purchase cost | 4.39 | 0.912 | 5 |
Comfort | 4.38 | 0.838 | 5 |
Repair and maintenance cost | 4.34 | 0.844 | 4 |
Ease of putting on and taking off the device | 4.25 | 1.033 | 5 |
Range of battery life | 4.23 | 0.859 | 4 |
Ability to walk on uneven surfaces | 4.22 | 0.922 | 4 |
Amount of energy needed for use | 4.15 | 1.015 | 4 |
Ability to carry out daily tasks while standing | 4.13 | 0.946 | 4 |
Portability of the device | 4.09 | 0.942 | 4 |
Ability to toilet | 4.05 | 1.071 | 4 |
Ability to use to get in and out of a car | 3.97 | 1.033 | 4 |
Ability to climb stairs | 3.91 | 1.029 | 4 |
Ability to use without arm crutches | 3.71 | 1.006 | 4 |
Walking speed | 3.64 | 0.985 | 4 |
Length of training to become proficient | 3.34 | 1.082 | 3 |
Overall appearance | 3.23 | 1.177 | 3 |
Valid N = 405
|
Exploratory factor analysis
Exoskeleton design features | Factor 1 (Technology characteristics) | Factor 2 (Functional activities) |
---|---|---|
Purchase cost |
0.778
| |
Repair and maintenance cost |
0.758
| |
Comfort |
0.701
| -0.128 |
Ease of putting on and taking off the device |
0.694
| |
Minimizes risk of falling |
0.659
| -0.107 |
Amount of energy needed for use |
0.659
| |
Length of training to become proficient |
0.509
| |
Overall appearance |
0.375
| -0.107 |
Ability to climb stairs | -0.212 |
-0.855
|
Ability to carry out daily tasks while standing |
-0.757
| |
Ability to use to get in and out of a car |
-0.731
| |
Ability to walk on uneven surfaces | 0.110 |
-0.672
|
Walking speed |
-0.573
| |
Ability to toilet | 0.142 |
-0.495
|
Portability of the device | 0.395 |
-0.471
|
Range of battery life | 0.310 |
-0.459
|
Ability to use without arm crutches | 0.171 |
-0.419
|
Qualitative analysis
Theme* | Associated categories |
---|---|
Psychosocial Benefits
| Roles & relationships, psychological, quality of life, independence, eye-level social interaction, curiosity/interest, “cool”, social, experience |
Health and Physical Benefits
| Health, pressure management, pain control, walking, standing, exercise, transfers, rehabilitation |
Uses in Daily Life
| Leisure, employment, functional day-to-day tasks, access, outdoor use |
Larger Impacts
| Research & development, visibility, advocacy |
Client-driven
| Client goals, motivation, use of available resources |
Device will not work
| Potentially harmful, inefficient, impractical, too expensive, dislike aesthetic |
Not compatible with my impairment
| Hemiplegia, quadriplegia, low bone density, contractures, lack of arm/hand use, poor balance, amputee, obesity, muscular dystrophy, uneven lower extremities |