RESUMO
PURPOSE: Evaluate the potential of a wheelchair assistive technology (StandBar) to promote power wheelchair users' ability to safely stand independently from their power wheelchair and determine the impact of the device use on psychological well-being for both power wheelchair users and their caregivers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A convenience sample of 11 power wheelchair users and caregiver dyads provided study data. Participants included power wheelchair users who were existing StandBar users or currently in training with the StandBar as part of their rehabilitation. Assessments were conducted at baseline and at six-month follow-up and included physiological assessments and functional testing with and without the StandBar. Monthly follow-up phone calls were completed to collect information on adverse events (e.g., falls, hospitalizations, and skin breakdown). A qualitative interview assessed StandBar users' and caregivers' perception at six-month follow-up. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: StandBar use provided power wheelchair users a higher level of independence, confidence, and safety. All participants highly recommended StandBar use to others with similar levels of functional impairment. StandBar use allowed many participants the ability to complete functional tasks that were otherwise not possible without assistance. Qualitative interviews reported improved independence and psychological well-being for StandBar users as well as reduced levels of anxiety and burden of care by caregivers. The StandBar is a cost-effective assistive technology that promotes independence and functionality for power wheelchair users and improves the psychological well-being of users and their caregivers. Implications for RehabilitationStandBar allows power wheelchair users to:Minimize negative effects of immobilization.Increase independence for activities of daily living (grooming, hygiene, toileting, transfers) and instrumental activities of daily living (social experiences).Improve their quality of life through increasing independence and confidence.Reduce need for assistance and corresponding caregiver burden.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were to evaluate and to compare protective properties of commercially available medical helmets for a set of standardized head injury risk measures. METHODS: Eleven helmet types were evaluated to represent the variety of commercially available medical helmet designs and manufacturers. A test mannequin and sensor apparatus were used to simulate a backward-standing fall. The head/neck size, mass, and "standing" height of the mannequin (5'9â³) were representative of a 50th percentile male. A triaxial array was placed at the head center of mass to position 3 linear accelerometers and 3 angular rate sensors. Data were collected for 5 single trials for each helmet, as well as 5 repeated trials. Five trials were also collected with no helmet scenarios. Three head injury risk measures were examined (linear acceleration, angular acceleration, and head injury criterion). Data were analyzed by clinical cutoff thresholds and continuous values. RESULTS: Helmets varied in their performance across head injury risk measures. All helmets provided higher levels of protection compared with no helmet scenarios. No helmets were protective for subdural hematoma (measured by angular acceleration). All helmets lost protective properties with repeated falls. Results for skull fracture risk were inconsistent between linear acceleration and head injury criterion injury risk measures. CONCLUSIONS: No helmets were protective across all head injury risk measures. Medical helmets may reduce some fall injury severity but may not prevent all types of head injury. All helmets exhibited worsening of protective properties with repeated falls. We recommend medical helmets be replaced after each fall incident where the helmet impacts another surface.
