Consensus for a power wheelchair training approach for people with cognitive impairments.

PURPOSE: Power wheelchairs (PWCs) can enhance independent mobility. The World Health Organization recommends training PWC users. However, current PWC training approaches do not always meet the needs of PWC users with complex mobility and cognitive impairment. The aim was to co-develop an innovative approach to PWC training for individuals with complex mobility and cognitive impairments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-phase mixed method research, involving PWC users, clinicians and researchers throughout all aspects of the research, was realized. (1) Interviews and focus groups were used. (2) The Delphi method was followed to refine the PWC training approach. RESULTS: Phase 1: Twenty-six stakeholders indicated that PWC training should consider the client as a partner, the learning environment, the proposed activities, interactions with the trainer and intervention format. Phase 2: two hundred and seven participants agreed that the PWC training should be goal directed, should be client-centred and occupation-based, should enhance client-therapist relationships and should be realized in a safe and adapted environment. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders on PWC use came to agreement on key components that should be applied when training people with cognitive impairments.

Stakeholders on power wheelchair (PWC) use came to agreement on key components that should be applied when training people with cognitive impairments.Power wheelchair training should be goal directed, should be client-centred and occupation-based, should enhance client­therapist relationships and should be realized in a safe and adapted environment.Results of this study may contribute to best practices for PWC training and may empower occupational therapists providing PWC in their clinical decision-making.

International research priorities on the role of cognition in power mobility device use: In pursuit of informed clinical practices and knowledge translation.

Cognition is an important factor affecting power mobility device (PMD) use. However, a gap in knowledge on the role of cognition in PMD use limits evidence of best practices for screening, assessment, and training. The overall goal of this research activity was to identify strategic research priorities to delineate the next steps in research. Following the Collaborative Prioritized Planning Process (CP3), a 1.5-day meeting was held with an interdisciplinary and international team of assistive technology users, clinicians, service providers, and researchers with expertise in PMD use and cognition. Our four-stage process included: knowledge synthesis; identification and prioritization of challenges; identification, consolidation, and prioritization of solutions; and action planning. Five of 14 challenges for research on cognition and PMD use were prioritized, and five solutions (of the 100 generated) perceived to be the most impactful were selected as the focus for the remainder of the meeting. The resulting prioritized solutions included, improving knowledge translation of existing and new evidence, profiling and addressing individualized needs, creating and evaluating training tools, development of practice guidelines, and validating and developing evaluation tools or toolkit. Preliminary action planning facilitated discussion of potential future projects, initiated new research collaborations and partnerships, and provided a foundation to build a program of research for investigating the role of cognition in PMD use.

Feasibility and clinical applicability of a novel power wheelchair training approach.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and the clinical applicability of administering the COMET (cognition, occupation, mobility, evaluation and training) intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pilot research was conducted with adults who were being considered for power wheelchair (PWC) provision, or who were recently provided a PWC, and who had been identified to benefit from a PWC training. The COMET intervention applies a goal directed, client-centred and occupation-based approach. Feasibility and applicability indicators were collected for: process, resources, management and treatment. Indicators were evaluated as "successful/unsuccessful". Clinical outcomes included the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS), the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), the Power mobility Indoor Driving Assessment (PIDA) and the Wheelchair Skills Test (WST). RESULTS: Four females (62.5 ± 3.5 years) with cognitive impairment participated in the study. Among the 13 indicators, 10 were successfully achieved. Indicators that did not meet the criteria for success were adherence rate, safety and treatment for the PIDA. Two adverse events were reported, with one minor injury. Participants demonstrated better than expected results on the GAS, the COPM scores and the WST. However, only two reported an improvement beyond 4% of the PIDA. CONCLUSIONS: With few modifications, the COMET intervention and the study protocol will be feasible and applicable in clinical practice. Individuals with complex cognitive and mobility impairment demonstrated abilities to learn PWC use. Further investigation of the COMET intervention is required to evaluate its efficacy.Implications for rehabilitationA novel power wheelchair (PWC) training approach adapted to individual with complex mobility and cognitive impairments was developed: the COMET (cognition, occupation, mobility, evaluation and training) intervention.The COMET intervention applies a goal directed, client-centred and occupation-based approach.With minor modifications, the COMET intervention may be feasible and clinically applicable to train individuals with complex motor and cognitive impairments how to use a PWC.Further evaluation of the COMET intervention and lager control trialsare suggested.

Relationships between Cognitive Functioning and Powered Mobility Device Use: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Powered mobility devices (PMD) promote independence, social participation, and quality of life for individuals with mobility limitations. However, some individuals would benefit from PMD, but may be precluded access. This is particularly true for those with cognitive impairments who may be perceived as unsafe and unable to use a PMD. This study explored the relationships between cognitive functioning and PMD use. The objectives were to identify cognitive functions necessary to use a PMD and describe available PMD training approaches. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included. Four examined the predictive or correlational relationships between cognitive functioning and PMD use outcomes with intellectual functions, visual and visuospatial perception, attention, abstraction, judgement, organization and planning, problem solving, and memory identified as having a relation with PMD use outcome in at least one study. Thirteen others studied the influence of PMD provision or training on users' PMD capacity and cognitive outcomes and reported significative improvements of PMD capacities after PMD training. Six studies found improved cognitive scores after PMD training. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive functioning is required to use a PMD. Individuals with heterogeneous cognitive impairment can improve their PMD capacities. Results contribute to advancing knowledge for PMD provision.

Relationships between cognitive functioning and power wheelchair performance, confidence and life-space mobility among experienced power wheelchair users: An exploratory study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore: (i) relationships between power wheelchair performance, confidence, mobility and the severity of user's cognitive impairment; (ii) relationships between cognitive functioning and power wheelchair performance, confidence and mobility; and (iii) how cognitive scores influence power wheelchair performance, confidence and mobility. DESIGN: Cross-sectional exploratory study. SUBJECTS: Independent power wheelchair users; ≥18 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cognitive assessments (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Motor-Free Visual Perception Test, and Dysexecutive Questionnaire) and power wheelchair driving assessments (Power mobility Indoor Driving Assessment, Wheelchair-Skills-Test-Questionnaire, and Life-Space Assessment). Analyses were completed using multivariate analysis of variance and principal component analysis. RESULTS: There were a total of 30 participants (with a mean (SD) age of 58 (15) years, who had a mean (SD) of 3 (6.2) years of experience of power wheelchair use, (SD) and a mean score of 22 (5 on) the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. There were statistically significant differences in all power wheelchair driving assessments, depending on the severity of cognitive impairment (moderate, p = 0.009; mild, p = <0.001; none, p = 0.009). The first principal component suggested that cognitive functioning, visual perception, and performance explained 69% of the variability in the first principle componenent. The second and third principal components suggested that confidence and the built and social environments also played significant roles in power wheelchair use. CONCLUSION: There are correlations between cognitive functioning and power wheelchair use in experienced users, with the severity of cognitive impairment influencing power wheelchair driving outcomes.

Influence of Cognitive Functioning on Powered Mobility Device Use: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Power mobility devices (PMD) are critical to achieving independent mobility and social participation for many individuals who have trouble walking. Provision of PMDs is complex, with cognitive functioning expressed by clinicians as a major concern. Even if PMD use can be predicted by the level of cognitive functioning, outcome tools used to assess readiness do not consider how cognitive functioning may affect PMD use. OBJECTIVE: The specific aims of this review are to identify existing assessments used to assess cognitive functioning and PMD use, classify cognitive functions that are identified within existing assessments related to PMD use, and explore the relationships between cognitive functioning (ie, executive functions and attention) and PMD use. METHODS: A systematic review will be conducted using the electronic databases MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO (Ovid), and Web of Science based on the concepts of PMD performance and capacity, and cognitive functioning. To be included, studies must have: a sample of PMD users (inclusive of age and diagnoses), an assessment of cognitive functioning, and an assessment of PMD capacity or performance. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health will be used to classify cognitive functions. Study quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative and quantitative studies will be analyzed in a complementary manner depending on their designs; a result-based convergent synthesis design will be applied. RESULTS: This proposed systematic review protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019118957). It was funded by the Quebec Rehabilitation Research Network and approved on February 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Results will inform the development of a PMD driving program that aims to enhance cognition. The results of this study will enhance understanding of the influence of cognitive functioning on PMD use and will support the clinical practice in choosing appropriate evaluative tools. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019118957; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php? RecordID=118957. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16534.

Do patients with traumatic brain injury learn a route in the same way in real and virtual environments?

UNLABELLED: An increasing number of studies address the use of virtual environments (VE) in the cognitive assessment of spatial abilities. However, the differences between learning in a VE and a real environment (RE) remain controversial. PURPOSE: To compare the topographical behavior and spatial representations of patients with traumatic brain injury navigating in a real environment and in a virtual reproduction of this environment. METHODS: Twenty-seven subjects with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury were consecutively included and allocated to one of two groups. The subjects were taught the same route in either the virtual environment or the real environment and had to recall it twice immediately after learning the route and once after a delay. At the end of these sessions, the subjects were asked to complete three representational tests: a map test, a map recognition test recognition and a scene arrangement test. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the two groups with regards to demographics, severity of brain injury or episodic memory. As a main result, the number of error rates did not significantly differ between the real and virtual environment [F (1, 25) = 0.679; p = 0.4176)]. Scores on the scene arrangement test were higher in the real environment [U = 32.5; p = 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: Although spatial representations probably differ between the real and virtual environment, virtual reality remains a trusty assessment tool for spatial abilities.