Impaired Balance, Impaired Mobility
Conditions
Keywords
Transfers, Mobility Aid, Mobility Support
Brief summary
This is an initial usability assessment of a vehicle Seat Transfer device, the Safer Seat. The study will involve target end users (individuals with mobility impairments) trialing the Safer Seat and providing feedback via the Technology Acceptance Model Survey's Modified from Davis (1985) and brief qualitative interview.
Detailed description
This study investigates the initial usability of the Safer Seat vehicle transfer aid. Participants with impaired mobility, strength, or balance are being asked to transfer onto and off of a vehicle seat with and without the device to trial its usability. In addition, transfers are doing rated by a licensed occupational therapist according to the Physical Mobility Scale to determine if independence level is affected. Usability evaluation is being done both qualitatively and quantitatively using Technology Assessment Surveys and a semi-structured interview. Insight gained through this initial trial will be used to refine the design of the Safer Seat.
Interventions
DEVICESafer Seat Usability Trial
Participants will be asked to transfer onto/off of the vehicle seat using their normal method of transfer and then to trial transferring onto/off of a vehicle seat with the Safer Seat 1 one or more times with study personnel. Demographic data will be recorded for all participants to include age, sex, and type of mobility disability. Transfers will be observed by the research personnel and success in transfers will be recorded according to the Physical Mobility Scale. Usefulness and usability of the Safer Seat transfer experience will be reported by participants via Technology Acceptance Model Surveys; and participants will engage in a brief semi structured interview that will be audio recorded and transcribed via Microsoft Teams.
Sponsors
Julie Faieta
Study design
Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* 18 years of age or older * Currently living with impaired mobility, strength, or balance * Self-reported ability to complete transfers at modified independent (independent with the use of an assistive device) or minimal assist (a small amount of assistance from another person) level
Exclusion criteria
\-
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Physical Mobility Scale | Day 1 | Used to rate ability level in sit to stand and stand to sit transfers from 0 if not able to bear weight, to 5 if independent and not needing to use upper extremities for assistance. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Technology Acceptance Model Perceived Ease of Use, Usefulness, and Attitudes Toward Use Questionnaires | Day 1 | Modified from Davis (1985) surveys to assess Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and Attitudes Toward Use. Each subscale score reflects the mean of its items; subscales are not combined into a total score. Perceived Usefulness (7 items): subscale range 1 to 5; higher scores indicate greater perceived usefulness (better outcome). Perceived Ease of Use (10 items): subscale range 1 to 5; higher scores indicate greater perceived ease of use (better outcome). For both subscales, items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). Four items are phrased negatively and are reverse coded prior to scoring, such that higher scores consistently reflect a more favorable response. Attitudes Toward Use (5 items): subscale range 0 to 100; items rated on a visual analog scale from 0 (favorable pole) to 100 (unfavorable pole), reversed for scoring so that higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes toward use (better outcome). |
| Semi-Structured Interview: Usability Themes | Day 1 | Participants completed a six-question semi-structured interview focused on usability and usefulness of the Safer Seat. Questions served as qualitative prompts; responses were analyzed thematically. The number of participants whose responses reflected each identified theme is reported. Where responses were conditional or context-dependent, participants are counted only if their response reflected the theme without qualification. |
| Demographic Data: Diagnosis | Day 1 | Diagnoses were categorized by condition type. Individual diagnoses included fibromyalgia and functional seizure disorder, hip replacement, paraplegia, myasthenia gravis, peripheral neuropathy, bilateral club feet with hip dysplasia, chronic pain with lumbar degenerative disc disease, and sciatica with degenerative disc disease. |
| Demographic Data: Time Since Injury | Day 1 | Time since injury was not collected, it was not applicable to all participants. |
Countries
United States
Contacts
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORJulie Faieta, PhD, MOT
University of Pittsburgh
Participant flow
Recruitment details
All 8 participants were recruited through Pitt+Me, the University of Pittsburgh's research participant registry. Individuals who met eligibility criteria were contacted directly by the study team and scheduled for informed consent and data collection.
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | — |
|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 4 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 4 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk |
|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 8 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 8 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 8 |
Outcome results
None listed