SEARCHSYSTEMATIC_REVIEWresearch methods, clinical trial

systematic_review·research methods, clinical trial, observational study, systematic review·PMC10036232

A Systematic Review of Outcomes Measured Following New Wheelchair and Seating-Prescription Interventions in Adults

Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation · 5 authors, 6 centres

AI SUMMARY

FIDELITY 100%

This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.

AGENT 01 · STRUCTURED SUMMARY

TRACE TO SOURCE

“

TL;DR

This systematic review analyzed 48 studies to identify which outcomes and measurement tools are used when prescribing new wheelchairs or seating systems for adults. The review found high heterogeneity in outcome measures and tool selection, with wheelchair use, satisfaction, activity, and participation being the most studied domains.

Full summary

189 CHARS

The authors searched multiple databases and categorized outcomes into 12 domains. The review identified 37 standardized outcome-measurement tools, but study-specific tools were also common.

STUDY TYPE

systematic_review

SPECIALTY

research methods

SUMMARISED BY

AI pipeline

FIDELITY CHECK

100% · A

ORIGINAL PAPER

PMC10036232

A Systematic Review of Outcomes Measured Following New Wheelchair and Seating-Prescription Interventions in Adults

Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation

READ THE FULL PAPER

ABSTRACT

Objectives To determine the outcomes and outcome-measurement tools currently used during the prescription of new wheelchairs and/or seating systems. A systematic review of studies was performed to identify outcome-measurement tools. Data Sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched from earliest available to March 2022. Study Selection Studies were included if they focused on a new wheelchair or seating-system prescription with adults. Data Extraction Data extraction and quality assessments were conducted by 2 reviewers; disagreements were resolved by consensus. Risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro scale (for randomized controlled trials) and the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (for non-randomized studies). Data Synthesis 48 articles were included which identified 37 standardized outcome-measurement tools. Use of study-specific outcome-measurement tools was common. Wheelchair use, user satisfaction, activity, and participation were the most studied outcome domains. Commonly used standardized assessments included the QUEST 2.0, functional independence measure, WHODAS II, IPPA, and PIADS. Conclusion Outcome measures to evaluate wheelchair and seating-system prescription vary, and the use of study-specific outcome-measurement tools is high. There is a need to choose consistent outcome measures that are reliable and valid, and deal with this complex area through ensuring carefully constructed study designs.

CITATION EXPORT

Belinda Robertson, Rachel Lane, Natasha Lannin et al.. A Systematic Review of Outcomes Measured Following New Wheelchair and Seating-Prescription Interventions in Adults. Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arrct.2022.100249

AUTHORS

5 · 6 CENTRES

Belinda Robertson, Rachel Lane, Natasha Lannin, Kate Laver, Christopher Barr

aOccupational Therapy Department, Alfred Health, Caulfield Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
bFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
cDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
dSchool of Allied Health (Occupational Therapy), La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
eOccupational Therapy Department, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia
fCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia