Background: Mobility impairments are the third leading cause of disability for community-dwelling Canadians. Wheelchairs and scooters help compensate for these challenges. There are limited data within the last decade estimating the prevalence of wheelchair and scooter use in Canada. Objective: The aims of this study were: (1) to estimate the prevalence of wheelchair and scooter use in Canada and (2) to explore relevant demographic characteristics of wheelchair and scooter users. Design: This study was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional national survey. Methods: The Canadian Survey on Disability (2012) collected data on wheelchair and scooter use from community-dwelling individuals aged 15 years and over with a self-identified activity limitation on the National Household Survey. Prevalence estimates were calculated as weighted frequencies, with cross-tabulations to determine the number of wheelchair and scooter users in Canada, by province, and demographic characteristics (ie, age, sex) and bootstrapping to estimate the variance of all point estimates. Results: There were approximately 288,800 community-dwelling wheelchair and scooter users aged 15 years and over, representing 1.0% of the Canadian population. The sample included 197,560 manual wheelchair users, 42,360 powered wheelchair users, and 108,550 scooter users. Wheelchair and scooter users were predominantly women, with a mean age of 65 years. Approximately 50,620 individuals used a combination of 2 different types of devices. Limitations: The results are representative of individuals living in the community in Canada and exclude individuals in residential or group-based settings; estimates do not represent the true population prevalence. Conclusion: This analysis is the first in more than 10 years to provide a prevalence estimate and description of wheelchair and scooter users in Canada. Since 2004, there has been an increase in the proportion of the population who use wheelchairs and scooters, likely related to an aging Canadian population. These new prevalence data have potential to inform policy, research, and clinical practice.

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate pushrim-activated, power-assisted wheelchair (PPW) performance among dual-users in their natural environment to determine whether the PPW would serve as a satisfactory alternative to a power wheelchair for community-based activities. Methods. A concurrent mixed methods research design using a cross-over trial was used. The outcome measures used were number of hours reported using the different wheelchairs, Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST), Functioning Everyday with a Wheelchair (FEW), Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Results. The number of hours spent participating in self-identified activities was not significantly different. Only the Self-Esteem subscale of the PIADS identified a statistically significant difference between the PPW and power wheelchair conditions (p = 0.016). A clinically important difference for Performance and Satisfaction was suggested by the COPM, in favour of the power wheelchair. Conclusions. Additional knowledge was gained about the benefits of PPW technology. Participants were able to continue participating independently in their self-identified community activities using the PPW, and identified comparable ratings of satisfaction and performance with the PPW and the power wheelchair. For some individuals requiring power mobility, the PPW may provide an alternative to the power wheelchair.

Restricted mobility is the most common impairment among older adults and a manual wheelchair is often prescribed to address these limitations. However, limited access to rehabilitation services results in older adults typically receiving little or no mobility training when they receive a wheelchair. As an alternative and novel approach, we developed a therapist-monitored wheelchair skills home training program delivered via a computer tablet. To optimize efficacy and adherence, principles of self-efficacy and adult learning theory were foundational in the program design. A participatory action design approach was used to engage older adult wheelchair users, care providers, and prescribing clinicians in an iterative design and development process. A series of prototypes were fabricated and revised, based on feedback from eight stakeholder focus groups, until a final version was ready for evaluation in a clinical trial. Stakeholder contributions affirmed and enhanced the foundational theoretical principles and provided validation of the final product for the target population.

Background: Wheelchairs are frequently prescribed for residents with mobility impairments in long-term care. Many residents receive poorly fitting wheelchairs, compromising functional independence and mobility, and contributing to subsequent health issues such as pressure ulcers. The extent of this problem and the factors that predict poor fit are poorly understood; such evidence would contribute greatly to effective and efficient clinical practice in long-term care. Objective: To identify the prevalence of need for wheelchair seating intervention among residents in long-term care facilities in Vancouver and explore the relationship between the need for seating intervention and facility level factors. Methods: Logistic regression analysis using secondary data from a cross-sectional study exploring predictors of resident mobility. A total of 263 residents (183 females and 80 males) were randomly selected from 11 long-term care facilities in the Vancouver health region (mean age 84.2 ± 8.6 years). The Seating Identification Tool was used to establish subject need for wheelchair seating intervention. Individual item frequency was calculated. Six contextual variables were measured at each facility including occupational therapy staffing, funding source, policies regarding wheelchair-related equipment, and decision-making philosophy. Results: The overall prevalence rate of inappropriate seating was 58.6% (95% CI 52.6–64.5), ranging from 30.4 to 81.8% among the individual facilities. Discomfort, poor positioning and mobility, and skin integrity were the most common issues. Two facility level variables were significant predictors of need for seating assessment: ratio of occupational therapists per 100 residents [OR 0.11 (CI 0.04, 0.31)] and expectation that residents purchase wheelchair equipment beyond the basic level [OR 2.78 (1.11, 6.97)]. A negative association between facility prevalence rate and ratio of occupational therapists (r_p = –0.684, CI –0.143 to –0.910) was found. Conclusion: Prevalence of need for seating assessment in long-term care is high overall but it varies considerably between facilities. Increasing access to occupational therapy services appears to mediate this need.