The aim of this scoping review was to examine and synthesise literature on adaptive equipment use for personal care and mobility after stroke.
Method
We searched databases including Medline, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and Scopus to February 2016. Two authors independently screened 789 titles, identifying 28 studies for inclusion in the review.
Results
Findings were grouped into four themes: (1) stroke-specific impairments and consequences for equipment use and training; (2) meaning of equipment for people with stroke; (3) cost of equipment after stroke; and (4) conflicts between equipment provision and models of stroke rehabilitation.
Conclusion
The wide range of impairments after stroke increases complexity of how people use equipment. Nonetheless, training needs and the relationship between social context, identity and equipment use are increasingly better understood,. The findings highlight a tension between practice that seeks to re-train function by ‘normal’ movement without equipment and restoration of function by using compensation strategies involving use of equipment. However, there is no evidence that compensation strategies impede recovery of physical abilities. High-quality evidence about costs of equipment after stroke, which could inform policy decisions, is urgently needed.
AlletLLeemannBGuyenE (2009) Effect of different walking aids on walking capacity of patients with poststroke hemiparesis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation90: 1408–1413.
2.
ArkseyHO'MalleyL (2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology8: 19–32.
3.
AugerCDemersLGélinasI (2008) Powered mobility for middle-aged and older adults: Systematic review of outcomes and appraisal of published evidence. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation87: 666–680.
4.
BarkerDJReidDCottC (2004) Acceptance and meanings of wheelchair use in senior stroke survivors. American Journal of Occupational Therapy58: 221–230.
5.
BarkerDJReidDCottC (2006) The experience of senior stroke survivors: Factors in community participation among wheelchair users. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy73: 18–25.
6.
BarrettJAWatkinsCPlantR (2001) The COSTAR wheelchair study: A two-centre pilot study of self-propulsion in a wheelchair in early stroke rehabilitation. Collaborative stroke audit and research. Clinical Rehabilitation15: 32–41.
7.
ChiuCWYManDWK (2004) The effect of training older adults with stroke to use home-based assistive devices. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health24: 113–120.
8.
DawsonJThorntonH (2003) Can patients with unilateral neglect following stroke drive electrically powered wheelchairs?The British Journal of Occupational Therapy66: 496–504.
9.
FeiginVLForouzanfarMHKrishnamurthiR (2014) Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990–2010: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet383: 245–255.
10.
FerrarelloFBacciniMRinaldiLA (2011) Efficacy of physiotherapy interventions late after stroke: A meta-analysis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry82: 136–143.
11.
GarberSLBunzelRMongaTN (2002) Wheelchair utilization and satisfaction following cerebral vascular accident. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development39: 521–534.
12.
GelderblomGJde WitteLP (2002) The assessment of assistive technology outcomes, effects and costs. Technology & Disability14: 91–94.
13.
GitlinL (1998) Emerging concerns of older stroke patients about assistive device use. The Gerontologist38: 169–180.
14.
Gosman-HedstromGBlomstrandC (2003) Dependence and health-related quality of life in elderly people using assistive devices after acute stroke: The Gopteborg 70+ Stroke Study. Technology & Disability15: 247–257.
15.
Gosman-HedstromGClaessonLBlomstrandC (2002a) Assistive devices in elderly people after stroke: A longitudinal, randomized study—The Göteborg 70+ Stroke Study. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy9: 109–118.
16.
Gosman-HedstromGClaessonLBlomstrandC (2002b) Use and cost of assistive technology the first year after stroke. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care18: 520–527.
17.
HassUFreden-KarlssonIPerssonJ (1996) Assistive technologies in stroke rehabilitation from a user perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences10: 75–80.
18.
HassUPerssonJBrodinH (1995) Assessment of rehabilitation technologies in stroke: Outcomes and costs. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care11: 245–261.
19.
HesseSGahein-SamaALMauritzK (1996) Technical aids in hemiparetic patients: Prescription, costs and usage. Clinical Rehabilitation10: 328–333.
20.
HubbardSLFitzgeraldSGRekerDM (2006) Demographic characteristics of veterans who received wheelchairs and scooters from Veterans Health Administration. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development43: 831–844.
21.
Hubbard WinklerSLCowper RipleyDCWuS (2010a) Demographic and clinical variation in veterans health administration provision of assistive technology devices to veterans poststroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation91: 369–377.
22.
Hubbard WinklerSLVogelBHoenigH (2010b) Cost, utilization, and policy of provision of assistive technology devices to veterans poststroke by Medicare and VA. Medical Care48: 558–562.
23.
Hubbard WinklerSLWuSCowper RipleyDC (2011) Medical utilization and cost outcomes for poststroke veterans who receive assistive technology devices from the Veterans Health Administration. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development48: 125–132.
24.
Joanna Briggs Institute (2015) Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews, University of Adelaide, South Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute.
25.
JonesFRiaziANorrisM (2013) Self-management after stroke: Time for some more questions?Disability and Rehabilitation35: 257–264.
26.
JutaiJWCoulsonSTeasellR (2007) Mobility assistive device utilization in a prospective study of patients with first-ever stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation88: 1268–1275.
27.
KimOKimJH (2015) Falls and use of assistive devices in stroke patients with hemiparesis: Association with balance ability and fall efficacy. Rehabilitation Nursing40: 267–274.
28.
LauferY (2003) The effect of walking aids on balance and weight-bearing patterns of patients with hemiparesis in various stance positions. Physical Therapy83: 112–122.
29.
LennonS (1991) Wheelchair transfer training in a stroke patient with neglect: A single case study design. Physiotherapy Theory & Practice7: 51–55.
30.
LennonSBaxterDAshburnA (2001) Physiotherapy based on the Bobath concept in stroke rehabilitation: A survey within the UK. Disability and Rehabilitation23: 254–262.
31.
LevacDColquhounHO'BrienKK (2010) Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science5: 1–9.
32.
LoganPGladmanJAveryA (2004) Randomised controlled trial of an occupational therapy intervention to increase outdoor mobility after stroke. BMJ329: 1372.
33.
LundMNygardL (2003) Incorporating or resisting assistive devices: Different approaches to achieving a desired occupational self-image. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research: Occupation, Participation and Health23: 67–75.
34.
MannWCHurrenDTomitaM (1995) A follow-up study of older stroke survivors living at home. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation11: 52–66.
35.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med6(7): e1000097, .
36.
MortensonWBHammellKWLutsA (2015) The power of power wheelchairs: Mobility choices of community-dwelling, older adults. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy22: 394–401.
37.
MountainADKirbyRLEskesGA (2010a) Ability of people with stroke to learn powered wheelchair skills: A pilot study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation91: 596–601.
38.
MountainADKirbyRLMacLeodDA (2010b) Rates and predictors of manual and powered wheelchair use for persons with stroke: A retrospective study in a Canadian rehabilitation center. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation91: 639–643.
39.
MountainADKirbyRLSmithC (2014) Powered wheelchair skills training for persons with stroke: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation93: 1031–1043.
40.
National Health and Aging Trends Study (2016) National Health and Aging Trends Study. Available at: http://www.nhats.org/ (accessed 20 August 2016).
41.
PetterssonIAhlstromGTornquistK (2007a) The value of an outdoor powered wheelchair with regard to the quality of life of persons with stroke: A follow-up study. Assistive Technology19: 143–153.
42.
PetterssonIAppelrosiPAhlstromG (2007b) Lifeworld perspectives utilizing assistive devices: Individuals, lived experience following a stroke. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy74: 15–26.
43.
PetterssonITornquistKAhlstromG (2006) The effect of an outdoor powered wheelchair on activity and participation in users with stroke. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology1: 235–243.
44.
PhamMTRajicAGreigJD (2014) A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods5: 371–385.
45.
Pollock A, Baer G, Campbell P, et al. (2014) Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: Art. No. CD001920. DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD001920.pub3.
46.
PrangratTMannWCTomitaM (2000) Impact of unilateral neglect on assistive device use. Technology & Disability12: 53–69.
47.
PuntTDKitadonoKHullemanJ (2008) From both sides now: Crossover effects influence navigation in patients with unilateral neglect. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry79: 464–466.
48.
PuntTDKitadonoKHullemanJ (2011) Modulating wheelchair navigation in patients with spatial neglect. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation21: 367–382.
49.
ReidDTHebertDRudmanD (2001) Occupational performance in older stroke wheelchair users living at home. Occupational Therapy International8: 273–286.
50.
RudmanDHebertDReidD (2006) Living in a restricted occupational world: The occupational experiences of stroke survivors who are wheelchair users and their caregivers. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy73: 141–152.
51.
SchererMCraddockGMackeoghT (2011) The relationship of personal factors and subjective well-being to the use of assistive technology devices. Disability and Rehabilitation33: 811–817.
52.
SkolarusLEBurkeJFFreedmanVA (2014) The role of accommodations in poststroke disability management. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences69: S26–S34.
53.
SorensenHVLendalSSchultz-LarsenK (2003) Stroke rehabilitation: Assistive technology devices and environmental modifications following primary rehabilitation in hospital - a therapeutic perspective. Assistive Technology15: 39–48.
54.
Stroke Foundation of New Zealand and New Zealand Guidelines Group (2010) New Zealand Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management 2010, Wellington, New Zealand: Stroke Foundation of New Zealand.
55.
TurtonAJDewarSJLievesleyA (2009) Walking and wheelchair navigation in patients with left visual neglect. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation19: 274–290.
56.
TysonSFRogersonL (2009) Assistive walking devices in nonambulant patients undergoing rehabilitation after stroke: The effects on functional mobility, walking impairments, and patients' opinion. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation90: 475–479.
57.
WhiteheadPFellowsKSpriggN (2014) Who should have a pre-discharge home assessment visit after a stroke? A qualitative study of occupational therapists' views. British Journal of Occupational Therapy77: 384–391.
58.
World Health Organization (2004) Ageing and health technical report: A glossary of terms for community health care and services for older persons. Report no. WHO/WKC/Tech.Ser./04.2. Geneva: World Health Organization.
59.
WolfeCRuddAMcKevittC (2014) Modelling, evaluating and implementing cost-effective services to reduce the impact of stroke. Programme Grants for Applied Research2(2): 1–18.
60.
WoodmanPRiaziAPereiraC (2014) Social participation post stroke: A meta-ethnographic review of the experiences and views of community-dwelling stroke survivors. Disability and Rehabilitation36: 2031–2043.
61.
ZorowitzRD (2011) Stroke rehabilitation: An overview of existing guidelines and standards of care. European Neurological Review6: 170–174.
