The Most Important Assistive Devices for Persons with Spinal Cord Injury in Switzerland: A Cross-Sectional Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Sample
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Most Important Assistive Devices
2.2.2. Novel Assistive Devices
2.2.3. Other Measures
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Most Important Assistive Devices
3.2. Design Features of Assistive Devices
4. Discussion
Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bickenbach, J.; Officer, A.; Shakespeare, T.; von Groote, P.; World Health Organization; The International Spinal Cord Society. International Perspectives on Spinal Cord Injury; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Icare (Insurance and Care NSW). Guidance on the Support Needs for Adults with Spinal Cord Injury, 3rd ed.; Icare (Insurance and Care NSW): Sydney, Australia, 2017.
- Biering-Sørensen, F.; Hansen, R.B.; Biering-Sørensen, J. Mobility aids and transport possibilities 10–45 years after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2004, 42, 699–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Collinger, J.L.; Boninger, M.L.; Bruns, T.M.; Curley, K.; Wang, W.; Weber, D.J. Functional priorities, assistive technology, and brain-computer interfaces after spinal cord injury. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2013, 50, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assistive Technology Act of 2004. Public Law 108—364. Available online: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-108publ364 (accessed on 20 April 2023).
- Krantz, O. Assistive devices utilisation in activities of everyday life—A proposed framework of understanding a user perspective. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2012, 7, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Florio, J.; Arnet, U.; Gemperli, A.; Hinrichs, T. Need and use of assistive devices for personal mobility by individuals with spinal cord injury. J. Spinal Cord. Med. 2016, 39, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Federal Social Insurance Office (FSIO) Switzerland. Overview of Social Security in Switzerland. Available online: https://www.bsv.admin.ch/bsv/en/home/social-insurance/ueberblick.html (accessed on 18 April 2023).
- Swiss Government/Der Bundesrat. Landersrecht—83 Sozialversicherung. Available online: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/de/cc/internal-law/83 (accessed on 18 April 2023).
- Hertig-Godeschalk, A.; Gemperli, A.; Arnet, U.; Hinrichs, T. Availability and need of home adaptations for personal mobility among individuals with spinal cord injury. J. Spinal Cord. Med. 2018, 41, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wäckerlin, S.; Gemperli, A.; Sigrist-Nix, D.; Arnet, U. Need and availability of assistive devices to compensate for impaired hand function of individuals with tetraplegia. J. Spinal Cord. Med. 2020, 43, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scivoletto, G.; Galli, G.; Torre, M.; Molinari, M.; Pazzaglia, M. The Overlooked Outcome Measure for Spinal Cord Injury: Use of Assistive Devices. Front. Neurol. 2019, 10, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeung, K.-T.; Lin, C.-H.; Teng, Y.-L.; Chen, F.-F.; Lou, S.-Z.; Chen, C.-L. Use of and Self-Perceived Need for Assistive Devices in Individuals with Disabilities in Taiwan. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0152707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rubinelli, S.; Glässel, A.; Brach, M. From the person’s perspective: Perceived problems in functioning among individuals with spinal cord injury in Switzerland. J. Rehabil. Med. 2016, 48, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gross-Hemmi, M.H.; Gemperli, A.; Fekete, C.; Brach, M.; Schwegler, U.; Stucki, G. Methodology and study population of the second Swiss national community survey of functioning after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2021, 59, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Post, M.W.; Brinkhof, M.W.; von Elm, E.; Boldt, C.; Brach, M.; Fekete, C.; Eriks-Hoogland, I.; Curt, A.; Stucki, G.; SwiSCI study group. Design of the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Cohort Study. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2011, 90, S5–S16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hinrichs, T.; Prodinger, B.; Brinkhof, M.W.; Gemperli, A. Subgroups in epidemiological studies on spinal cord injury: Evaluation of international recommendations in the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Cohort Study. J. Rehabil. Med. 2016, 48, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Harrison, C.; Kuric, J. Community reintegration of SCI persons: Problems and perceptions. SCI Nurs. 1989, 6, 44–47. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Ginis, K.A.; Latimer, A.E.; Arbour-Nicitopoulos, K.P.; Buchholz, A.C.; Bray, S.R.; Craven, B.C.; Hayes, K.C.; Hicks, A.L.; McColl, M.A.; Potter, P.J.; et al. Leisure time physical activity in a population-based sample of people with spinal cord injury part I: Demographic and injury-related correlates. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2010, 91, 722–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latimer, A.E.; Ginis, K.A.; Craven, B.C.; Hicks, A.L. The physical activity recall assessment for people with spinal cord injury: Validity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2006, 38, 208–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davenport, R.D.; Mann, W.; Lutz, B. How older adults make decisions regarding smart technology: An ethnographic approach. Assist. Technol. 2012, 24, 168–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marti, A.; Reinhardt, J.D.; Graf, S.; Escorpizo, R.; Post, M.W. To work or not to work: Labour market participation of people with spinal cord injury living in Switzerland. Spinal Cord. 2012, 50, 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwegler, U.; Fekete, C.; Finger, M.; Karcz, K.; Staubli, S.; Brinkhof, M.W.G. Labor market participation of individuals with spinal cord injury living in Switzerland: Determinants of between-person differences and counterfactual evaluation of their instrumental value for policy. Spinal Cord. 2021, 59, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Post, M.W.; Reinhardt, J.D.; Avellanet, M.; Escorpizo, R.; Engkasan, J.P.; Schwegler, U.; Leiulfsrud, A.S. Employment Among People With Spinal Cord Injury in 22 Countries Across the World: Results From the International Spinal Cord Injury Community Survey. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2020, 101, 2157–2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, N.; Jette, A.M.; Houlihan, B.; Williams, S. Computer and internet use by persons after traumatic spinal cord injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2008, 89, 1492–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Post, M.W.M.; Leenders, J.M.P.; Tepper, M.; Snoek, G.J.; Allrisc; van der Woude, L.H.V.; Adriaansen, J.J.E. Computer and internet use among people with long-standing spinal cord injury: A cross-sectional survey in the Netherlands. Spinal Cord. 2019, 57, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mayman, G.; Perera, M.; Meade, M.A.; Jennie, J.; Maslowski, E. Electronic device use by individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury. J. Spinal Cord. Med. 2017, 40, 449–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dicianno, B.E.; Joseph, J.; Eckstein, S.; Zigler, C.K.; Quinby, E.; Schmeler, M.R.; Schein, R.M.; Pearlman, J.; Cooper, R.A. The Voice of the Consumer: A Survey of Veterans and Other Users of Assistive Technology. Mil. Med. 2018, 183, e518–e525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Morone, G.; Pirrera, A.; Iannone, A.; Giansanti, D. Development and Use of Assistive Technologies in Spinal Cord Injury: A Narrative Review of Reviews on the Evolution, Opportunities, and Bottlenecks of Their Integration in the Health Domain. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wolff, J.; Parker, C.; Borisoff, J.; Mortenson, W.B.; Mattie, J. A survey of stakeholder perspectives on exoskeleton technology. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2014, 11, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lajeunesse, V.; Vincent, C.; Routhier, F.; Careau, E.; Michaud, F. Exoskeletons’ design and usefulness evidence according to a systematic review of lower limb exoskeletons used for functional mobility by people with spinal cord injury. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2016, 11, 535–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alqahtani, S.; Joseph, J.; Dicianno, B.; Layton, N.A.; Toro, M.L.; Ferretti, E.; Tuakli-Wosornu, Y.A.; Chhabra, H.; Neyedli, H.; Lopes, C.R.; et al. Stakeholder perspectives on research and development priorities for mobility assistive-technology: A literature review. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2021, 16, 362–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brinkhof, M.W.; Fekete, C.; Chamberlain, J.D.; Post, M.W.; Gemperli, A. Swiss national community survey on functioning after spinal cord injury: Protocol, characteristics of participants and determinants of non-response. J. Rehabil. Med. 2016, 48, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Total (N = 1294) n (%) | |
---|---|
Gender | 1294 (100) |
Female | 374 (28.9) |
Male | 920 (71.1) |
Age (years) | 1294 (100) |
16–30 | 54 (4.2) |
31–45 | 253 (19.6) |
46–60 | 443 (34.2) |
61–75 | 431 (33.3) |
76+ | 113 (8.7) |
Living situation | 1280 (100) |
Living alone | 366 (28.6) |
Living with others | 914 (67.9) |
Living in an institution | 45 (3.5) |
Work status | 1221 (100) |
In paid employment | 586 (48.0) |
Not in paid employment | 635 (52.0) |
SCI severity | 1158 (100) |
Complete paraplegia | 327 (28.2) |
Incomplete paraplegia | 487 (42.1) |
Complete tetraplegia | 90 (7.8) |
Incomplete tetraplegia | 254 (21.9) |
SCI etiology | 1280 (100) |
Traumatic | 1027 (80.2) |
Non-traumatic | 253 (19.8) |
Time since injury (years) | 1294 (100) |
0–5 | 260 (20.1) |
6–15 | 408 (31.5) |
16–25 | 270 (20.9) |
26+ | 356 (27.5) |
Assistive Device Category | Total (N = 3761) n (%) |
---|---|
Short-distance mobility device | 1159 (30.8) |
Long-distance mobility device | 840 (22.3) |
Home adaptation | 619 (16.5) |
Transfer equipment | 331 (8.8) |
Daily activity/self-care tool | 312 (8.3) |
Sports equipment | 207 (5.5) |
Communication aid | 132 (3.5) |
Positioning device | 108 (2.9) |
Environmental control system | 28 (0.7) |
Medical aid | 25 (0.7) |
Assistive Device | Gender | Age | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | Male n (%) | Female n (%) | N | 16–30 n (%) | 31–45 n (%) | 46–60 n (%) | 61–75 n (%) | 76+ n (%) | |
Manual wheelchair | 644 | 475 (62.8) | 169 (55.8) | 644 | 23 (74.2) | 138 (78.9) | 231 (76.2) | 208 (66.9) | 44 (51.2) |
Adapted car | 491 | 367 (48.5) | 124 (40.9) | 491 | 22 (71.0) | 112 (64.0) | 197 (65.0) | 144 (46.3) | 16 (18.6) |
Wheelchair tractor | 215 | 151 (20.0) | 64 (21.1) | 215 | 3 (9.7) | 34 (19.4) | 71 (23.4) | 94 (30.2) | 13 (15.1) |
Canes | 163 | 112 (14.8) | 51 (16.8) | 163 | 1 (3.2) | 19 (10.9) | 40 (13.2) | 78 (25.1) | 25 (29.1) |
Care bed | 160 | 117 (15.5) | 43 (14.2) | 160 | 7 (22.6) | 19 (10.9) | 50 (16.5) | 63 (20.3) | 21 (24.4) |
Lift | 110 | 80 (10.6) | 30 (9.9) | 110 | 5 (16.1) | 16 (9.1) | 49 (16.2) | 32 (10.3) | 8 (9.3) |
Adapted toilet | 106 | 87 (11.5) | 19 (6.3) | 106 | 2 (6.5) | 25 (14.3) | 45 (14.9) | 31 (10.0) | 3 (3.5) |
Hand bike | 103 | 83 (11.0) | 20 (6.6) | 101 | 3 (9.7) | 35 (20.0) | 33 (10.9) | 26 (8.4) | 4 (4.7) |
Computer | 102 | 68 (9.0) | 34 (11.2) | 102 | 9 (29.0) | 37 (21.1) | 25 (8.3) | 31 (10.0) | 0 (0.0) |
Assistive Device | Living Situation | Work Status | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | Alone n (%) | With Others n (%) | Institution n (%) | N | Not in Paid Employment n (%) | In Paid Employment n (%) | |
Manual wheelchair | 637 | 187 (64.7) | 432 (60.0) | 18 (46.2) | 615 | 324 (60.1) | 291 (61.3) |
Adapted car | 486 | 137 (47.4) | 347 (48.2) | 2 (5.1) | 469 | 193 (35.8) | 276 (58.1) |
Wheelchair tractor | 213 | 51 (17.6) | 156 (21.7) | 6 (15.4) | 204 | 126 (23.4) | 78 (16.4) |
Canes | 161 | 36 (12.5) | 122 (16.9) | 3 (7.7) | 154 | 100 (18.6) | 54 (11.4) |
Care bed | 158 | 47 (16.3) | 101 (14.0) | 10 (25.6) | 150 | 106 (19.7) | 44 (9.3) |
Lift | 109 | 27 (9.3) | 76 (10.6) | 6 (15.4) | 106 | 42 (7.8) | 64 (13.5) |
Adapted toilet | 106 | 39 (13.5) | 66 (9.2) | 1 (2.6) | 104 | 49 (9.1) | 55 (11.6) |
Hand bike | 103 | 21 (7.3) | 81 (11.3) | 1 (2.6) | 101 | 35 (6.5) | 66 (13.9) |
Computer | 101 | 14 (4.8) | 75 (10.4) | 12 (30.8) | 98 | 39 (7.2) | 59 (12.4) |
Assistive Device | SCI Severity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | Complete Paraplegia n (%) | Incomplete Paraplegia n (%) | Complete Tetraplegia n (%) | Incomplete Tetraplegia n (%) | |
Manual wheelchair | 579 | 259 (85.2) | 174 (46.4) | 52 (61.2) | 94 (51.4) |
Adapted car | 448 | 202 (66.4) | 134 (35.7) | 42 (49.4) | 70 (38.3) |
Wheelchair tractor | 194 | 86 (28.3) | 54 (14.4) | 22 (25.9) | 32 (17.5) |
Canes | 142 | 6 (2.0) | 101 (26.9) | 1 (1.2) | 34 (18.6) |
Care bed | 160 | 37 (12.2) | 34 (9.1) | 33 (38.8) | 37 (20.2) |
Lift | 99 | 40 (13.2) | 27 (7.2) | 13 (15.3) | 19 (10.4) |
Adapted toilet | 98 | 60 (19.7) | 15 (4.0) | 8 (9.4) | 15 (8.2) |
Hand bike | 97 | 49 (16.1) | 32 (8.5) | 8 (9.4) | 8 (4.4) |
Computer | 88 | 19 (6.3) | 15 (4.0) | 25 (29.4) | 29 (15.8) |
Daily Activity | Total (N = 438) n (%) |
---|---|
Walking | 85 (19.4) |
Transferring alone | 55 (12.6) |
Moving around | 41 (9.4) |
Doing housework | 39 (8.9) |
Bladder and bowel management | 36 (8.2) |
Preparing meals | 35 (8.0) |
Home adaptations/access | 33 (7.5) |
Washing oneself | 28 (6.4) |
Dressing | 16 (3.7) |
Lifting and carrying heavy objects | 16 (3.7) |
Driving | 13 (3.0) |
Maintaining body position | 12 (2.7) |
Sports | 11 (2.5) |
Other | 70 (16.0) |
Design Features | SCI Severity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total (N = 271) n (%) | Complete Paraplegia (N = 87) n (%) | Incomplete Paraplegia (N = 82) n (%) | Complete Tetraplegia (N = 26) n (%) | Incomplete Tetraplegia (N = 49) n (%) | |
Facilitate transfer | 32 (11.8) | 13 (14.9) | 11 (13.4) | 4 (15.4) | 2 (4.1) |
Walking support | 26 (9.6) | 12 (13.8) | 7 (8.5) | 1 (3.9) | 3 (6.1) |
Facilitate access | 23 (8.5) | 6 (6.9) | 7 (8.5) | 5 (19.2) | 1 (2.0) |
Adapted car | 12 (4.4) | 2 (2.3) | 2 (2.4) | 2 (7.7) | 5 (10.2) |
Remote control | 12 (4.4) | 3 (3.5) | 6 (7.3) | 1 (3.9) | 1 (2.0) |
Height-adjustable a | 11 (4.1) | 9 (10.3) | 2 (2.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
Stair-climbing | 11 (4.1) | 6 (6.9) | 1 (1.2) | 1 (3.9) | 2 (4.1) |
Lightweight b | 10 (3.7) | 3 (3.5) | 5 (6.1) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.0) |
Other | 134 (49.5) | 33 (37.9) | 41 (50.0) | 12 (46.2) | 34 (69.4) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wagner, A.; Schweizer, C.; Ronca, E.; Gemperli, A. The Most Important Assistive Devices for Persons with Spinal Cord Injury in Switzerland: A Cross-Sectional Study. Disabilities 2023, 3, 367-378. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities3030024
Wagner A, Schweizer C, Ronca E, Gemperli A. The Most Important Assistive Devices for Persons with Spinal Cord Injury in Switzerland: A Cross-Sectional Study. Disabilities. 2023; 3(3):367-378. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities3030024
Chicago/Turabian StyleWagner, Aylin, Cora Schweizer, Elias Ronca, and Armin Gemperli. 2023. "The Most Important Assistive Devices for Persons with Spinal Cord Injury in Switzerland: A Cross-Sectional Study" Disabilities 3, no. 3: 367-378. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities3030024