The Impact of Transfer Setup on the Performance of Independent Transfers: Phase I Final Report

Study limitations

There are several limitations to this study worth noting. A large number of our subjects were veterans who participated in organized sports-related events however we have found that their daily activity levels apart from the time of the event do not differ from adult WMD users who live in community (19).  If comparing the demographics of our sample to LaPlante et al (2010) who reported subject demographics among adult wheelchair users using data obtained by the US Census Bureau we find some similarities and some differences (Table 14).  It is important to note that the LaPlante (2010) statistics are inclusive of full-time, part-time WMD users and those who rely on human assistance for wheeled mobility.  The demographics of our sample resemble closely other studies that have specifically targeted independent mobility users thus further supporting the external validity of our study. For instance, a study that researched minimum space requirements for WMD maneuverability enrolled the majority of their subjects with spinal cord injury followed by central nervous system disorders ( multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, and spina bifida) (18). Similarly, a pilot study that investigated environmental barriers and facilitators for wheelchair users had the majority of its subjects with spinal cord injury followed by multiple sclerosis (20). Another study researched the effect of cross-slopes on the mobility of manual wheelchair users and also reported the majority of their subjects having spinal cord injury followed by multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, and amputations (21). 

The number of handhelds, their positioning, and how they were used throughout the transfer process were not comprehensively studied.  The lateral grab bar was at a fixed height, diameter, and length and always present on the station.  Only one front grab bar of variable height was introduced as an optional handheld but its horizontal distance from the platform, diameter, and length was fixed.  Its unclear what changes in the ‘fixed’ parameters could further aid users in the transfer process.

Table 14. Comparison between WMD users demographics reported by LaPlante (2010) and our study’s subjects demographics.

a Refer to Table 1 for Other type of self-reported disability in our sample
b Other in Laplante et al (2010) include diabetes, heart trouble, lung or respiratory problems, high blood pressure, blindness or vision problems, broken bone/fracture, cancer, senility/dementia/Alzheimer’s, kidney problems, mental or emotional problem, deafness or hearing problems, mental retardation and others which constituted 24.5% of the 56.5% and were not described in the article.

Table 14 Alternative Text Description: This table gives the comparison between WMD users demographics reported by LaPlante (2010) and our study’s subjects demographics. There are many similarities in the demographics between the two studies.