Background
Methods
Phase I Development and face validation of the screening questionnaire
Preliminary conceptual decisions
Dimensions from taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes | WC-related adverse outcomes tracked by the questionnaire | Source |
---|---|---|
EFFECTIVENESS: effect of assistive technology on domains of user functioning (ICF body functions, activity and participation) and effect of external influences on functioning and disability (ICF contextual factors) | ||
Body functions | ||
-Pain/discomfort | ||
-Skin problem | ||
-Positioning problem | ||
-WC incidents/accidents | ||
Activity and participation | ||
-Limited WC skills and knowledge | ||
-Restricted WC participation | ||
Environmental factors | ||
-Reasons for non-use (weather conditions, home accessibility, transportation issues) | Literature [58]/End-users | |
SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING: includes users’ cognitive and affective evaluations of how assistive technology has affected their lives | ||
Psychological functioning | ||
-Psychosocial distress | ||
Satisfaction | ||
-Device dissatisfaction | ||
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE: extent to which outcomes are important to society, primarily in terms of their economic effect | ||
Device use | ||
-Frequency of device use in various environments | ||
Service use | ||
-Device malfunction |
Item generation and response scaling
Face validation of the MOvIT questionnaire
Phase II Feasibility
Design
Participants
MOvIT Monitoring questionnaire
Procedures
Semi-structured questionnaire
Feasibility
Wheelchair user characteristics
Analyses
Phase I Development and face validation of the monitoring questionnaire
Phase II Feasibility
Results
Phase I Development and face validation of the screening questionnaire
Phase II Feasibility
Detected by IVRS call | Confirmed by clinical coordinator | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 only | T2 only | T1 and T2 | Total | Total | |
n | n | n | n (%) | n (%) | |
Any WC-related adverse outcome | 10 | 11 | 24 | 45 (69.2) | 38 (58.5) |
1-Non-use | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 (3.1) | 1 (1.5) |
2-Pain/discomfort | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13 (20.0) | 13 (20.0) |
3-Skin problem | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 (3.1) | 1 (1.5) |
4-Positioning problem | 3 | 3 | 5 | 11 (16.9) | 10 (15.4) |
5-WC incident | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 (10.8) | 7 (10.8) |
6-Psychological distress | 7 | 5 | 1 | 13 (20.0) | 2 (3.1) |
7-Restricted WC participation | - | 14 | 0 | 14 (21.5) | 13 (20.0) |
8-Limited WC skills/knowledge | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 (12.3) | 8 (12.3) |
9-Technical problems | 5 | 15 | 6 | 26 (40.0) | 23 (35.4) |
Total | 28 | 46 | 22 | 96 | 78 |
Not satisfied | 7 | 3 | 5 | 15 (23.1) | 15 (23.1) |
Contact requested | 5 | 1 | 0 | 6 (9.2) | 6 (9.2) |
Question | Clearly unproblematic | More or less unproblematic | Neutral | More or less problematic | Clearly problematic | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OVERALL EXPERIENCE | E.g. It was easy to use. It covers a lot of aspects. | E.g. It went well. As long as I hear well, it’s alright. Only one thing, my shoulder hurts after a while and I can’t hear with the other ear. | E.g. I had difficulty with some questions but I knew that someone would call back. | E.g. It’s long. It’s boring. It’s stupid. It makes no sense. | ||
Tell me about your experience with the automated calls for the follow-up of your new WC
| ||||||
n (%)/65 | 32 (49.2) | 10 (15.4) | 12 (18.5) | 7 (10.8) | 4 (6.2) | |
DURATION | E.g. It did not last 5 min. If they had asked more questions, I would have answered more. | E.g. It was quite short. I think the first call was shorter than the second one. | E.g. It was a little long and the talking speed was slow… if it was a normal conversation, it would have taken half the time. | E.g. It was too long on my cell phone. I have to pay fees. | ||
What did you think about the length of the call?
| ||||||
n (%)/65 | 37 (56.9) | 3 (4.6) | 8 (12.3) | 13 (20.0) | 4 (6.2) | |
CLARITY | E.g. The questions are very clear. The male and female voice … The man talks very well. The questions are asked clearly. They complement each other. | E.g. I understood what they asked. Sometimes I hesitated, but I did my best to answer. | E.g. Either the question is not clear or the response options are too limited, just yes or no. One question was missing response options. | E.g. I wondered if [the call] was made for persons with an intellectual disability. Short sentences and so clearly articulated as though they were afraid we wouldn’t understand. | ||
What did you think about the clarity of the call, with respect to the type or tone of voice?
| ||||||
n (%)/65 | 51 (78.5) | 4 (6.2) | 0 (0) | 7 (10.8) | 3 (4.6) | |
SPEED | E.g. They gave us enough time. It was perfect. | E.g. Would be easier in my mother tongue. | E.g. It was a little fast. | E.g. Very very long. Too long. Some people may need such a slow pace. There should be a slow and a fast option. | ||
What did you think about the speed of the call, such as the speed of the questions, or the time you had to answer?
| ||||||
n (%)/65 | 44 (67.7) | 1 (1.5) | 6 (9.2) | 9 (13.8) | 5 (7.7) | |
TECHNICAL ISSUES | E.g. No. When I wasn’t here, they called the next day. | E.g. They called me back the next day because I had pressed the wrong button. | E.g. I didn’t hear my name on the second call. | E.g. They stopped the call. | ||
Can you describe any technical problems you experienced during the automated calls?
| ||||||
n (%)/65 | 48 (73.8) | 3 (4.6) | 3 (4.6) | 7 (10.8) | 4 (6.2) | |
INPUT MODE | E.g. I used the keypad. Never had to repeat. | E.g. When I answered with yes or no, they asked me to repeat. I pressed with my finger instead. | E.g. I didn’t answer fast enough, that’s why they had to repeat the questions. | E.g. This was the main problem. They never understood me. The machine did not work properly I think. | ||
Can you explain how you proceeded to answer the call (voice or keypad)? Did you have to repeat your responses?
| ||||||
n (%)/65 | 43 (66.2) | 16 (24.6) | 0 (0) | 4 (6.2) | 2 (3.1) | |
USEFULNESS |
Useful for me
|
Useful for me and others
|
Useful for others
|
Not useful
| ||
Do you think that these calls were useful? Please describe why.
| E.g. I figured that they care for me. If something had gone wrong, they would have called me. | E.g. If it makes a change to my chair, yes. It will make wheelchairs better. There’s not only me, there’s others. | E.g. It’s good for the person who gives the chair. She knows everything is ok with the chair. | E.g. Not useful. Not useless. It did not change anything in my life. | ||
n (%)/64 | 32 (50.0) | 11 (17.2) | 10 (15.6) | 11 (17.2) | ||
INTENTION TO USE |
Yes
|
I don’t know
|
No
| |||
If your rehabilitation center offered this monitoring service in the future, would you register?
| E.g. I will always participate because it helps you, it helps me and it helps everyone. | E.g. No, I would rather call if I have a problem. | ||||
n (%)/65 | 53 (81.5) | 3 (4.6) | 9 (13.8) |