Feasibility of a Systematic, Comprehensive, One-to-One Training (SCOOT) program for new scooter users: study protocol for a randomized control trial

W Ben Mortenson, Sharon Jang, Charlie H Goldsmith, Laura Hurd Clarke, Sandra Hobson, Richelle Emery, W Ben Mortenson, Sharon Jang, Charlie H Goldsmith, Laura Hurd Clarke, Sandra Hobson, Richelle Emery

Abstract

Background: Mobility scooters can facilitate community participation among individuals with mobility limitations. However, accidents are a serious concern with scooter use. Scooter training has been recommended to improve safety, but there are currently few validated programs available. Therefore, we developed a Systematic, Comprehensive, One-to-One Training (SCOOT) program for scooter users. We will conduct a study to evaluate the outcomes produced by the provision SCOOT.

Methods: This feasibility study will use a mixed-methods, rater-blinded, randomized control trial, with a two-step wedge design. The study has two arms: an immediate intervention group, which will receive the intervention directly after baseline assessments, and a delayed intervention group, which will receive the intervention after a 6-week period. Forty participants, who will be stratified based on whether or not participants have previously held a driver's license, will be randomly assigned to each arm. The intervention for this study consists of 6 weeks of one-to-one scooter training by an experienced occupational therapist, who will provide training once or twice per week over the 6 weeks. The primary outcome measure is subjective scooter skills, measured using the Wheelchair Skills Test for scooters. Secondary outcomes include objective scooter skills, confidence, mobility, and satisfaction with selected participation activities. Descriptive measures include cognitive status, functional status, hearing, vision, physical accessibility of the home and community, and visual attention and task switching. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with the first ten willing participants from each group to learn about their scooter use and experiences with SCOOT.

Discussion: The results of this study will inform a larger randomized control trial. If the intervention is proven to be effective in this larger study, it may have important implications for policy and practice.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02696213 . Registered on 23 February 2016.

Keywords: Learning; Randomized control trial; Scooter; Training.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
SPIRIT figure. II Immediate Intervention, DI Delayed Intervention, WST Wheelchair Skills Test for Scooters, WST-Q Wheelchair Skills Test – Questionnaire for Scooters, WheelCon Wheelchair Use Confidence Scale, WhOM Wheelchair Outcome Measure, LSA Life Space Assessment, SUID Scooter Use Incidents Diary, SPAQ Scooter Physical Accessibility Questionnaire, MoCA Montreal Cognitive Assessment, HHIE Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly, LLDI Late Life Disability Index

References

    1. Mortenson WB, Miller WC, Boily J, Steele B, Odell L, Crawford EM, Desharnais G. Perceptions of power mobility use and safety within residential facilities. Can J Occup Ther. 2005;72:142–152. doi: 10.1177/000841740507200302.
    1. Mortenson WB, Miller WC. The wheelchair procurement process: perspectives of clients and prescribers. Can J Occup Ther. 2008;75:177–185. doi: 10.1177/000841740807500308.
    1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Announces New Initiatives on Power Wheelchair Coverage and Payment Policy. 2004. . Accessed 18 Mar 2016.
    1. Smith EM, Giesbrecht E, Mortenson WB, Miller WC. The prevalence of wheelchair and scooter use among community-dwelling Canadians. Phys Ther. 2016;96:1135–1142. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20150574.
    1. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, NRMA Motoring & Services, CHOICE, EnableNSW & Flinders University. Mobility Scooter Usage and Safety Survey Report, 2012. 2012. Retrieved from . Accessed 11 Mar 2016.
    1. Sullivan SJ, La Grow S, Alla S, Schneiders AG. Riding into the future: A snapshot of elderly mobility scooter riders and how they use their scooters. N Z Med J. 2014;127:43–49.
    1. Brandt Å, Iwarsson S, Ståhle A. Older people’s use of powered wheelchairs for activities and participation. J Rehabil Med. 2004;36:70–77. doi: 10.1080/16501970310017432.
    1. Samuelsson K, Wressle E. Powered wheelchairs and scooters for outdoor mobility: a pilot study on costs and benefits. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9:330–334. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2013.827244.
    1. Sund T, Iwarsson S, Anttila H, Brandt Å. Effectiveness of powered mobility devices in enabling community mobility-related participation: a prospective study among people with mobility restrictions. PM R. 2015;7:859–870. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.02.001.
    1. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Targeted Study of Injury Data Involving Motorised Mobility Scooters, 2011. 2011. . Accessed 11 Mar 2016.
    1. Cassell E, Clapperton A. Consumer product-related injury (2): Injury related to the use of motorized mobility scooters. In: Hazard. Monash University Accident Research Centre. 2006. . Accessed 11 Mar 2016.
    1. Hoenig H, Pieper C, Branch LG, Cohen HJ. Effect of motorized scooters on physical performance and mobility: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:279–286. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.11.022.
    1. Kirby RL, Miller WC, Routhier F, et al. Effectiveness of a wheelchair skills training program for powered wheelchair users: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96:2017–2026. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.07.009.
    1. Murphy C, Murphy I, O’Rourke K, O’Shea K. Motorised mobility scooters; upper limb fractures in elderly novice users. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2014;11:132–135.
    1. Mortenson WB, Hoag E, Higgins R, Emery R, Joyce L. Stakeholders’ perspectives related to the development of a scooter training program. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;11:289–294.
    1. Sakakibara BM, Miller WC, Souza M, Nikolova V, Best KL. Wheelchair skills training to improve confidence with using a manual wheelchair among older adults: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:1031–1037. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.01.016.
    1. Mortenson WB, Kim J. A scoping review of mobility scooter-related research studies. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53(5):531–540. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2015.05.0084.
    1. Niv A, Weiss P, Ratzon N. The effectiveness of combining occupational therapy intervention with computerized training for improved driving on the electric scooter. IJOT. 2008;18:E14–E15.
    1. Jannink MJA, Erren-Wolters V, de Kort AC, van der Kooij H. An electric scooter simulation program for training the driving skills of stroke patients with mobility problems: A pilot study. Cyber Psychol Behav. 2008;11:751–754. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0271.
    1. Kirby RL, Smith C, Parker K, et al. The Wheelchair Skills Program Manual. 2008. . Accessed 15 Sept 2016.
    1. Mortenson WB, Miller WC, Miller-Polgar J. Measuring wheelchair intervention outcomes: development of the wheelchair outcome measure. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2:275–285. doi: 10.1080/17483100701475863.
    1. Brown CA, Lilford RJ. The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-54.
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7586.
    1. Little RJ, D’Agostino R, Cohen ML, et al. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1355–1360. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1203730.
    1. Rushton PW, Kirby RL, Routhier F, Smith C. Measurement properties of the wheelchair skills test – questionnaire for powered wheelchair users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;11:400–406.
    1. Mortenson WB, Hurd Clarke L, Goldsmith CH, Jang S, Kirby RL. Measurement properties of the wheelchair skills test for scooters. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017; p. 1–6. .
    1. Miller WC, Garden J, Mortenson WB. Measurement properties of the wheelchair outcome measure in individuals with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:995–1000. doi: 10.1038/sc.2011.45.
    1. Auger C, Demers L, Gélinas I, Routhier F, Mortenson WB, Miller WC. Reliability and validity of the telephone administration of the wheelchair outcome measure (WhOM) for middle-aged and older users of power mobility devices. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42:574–581. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0557.
    1. Baker PS, Bodner EV, Allman RM. Measuring life-space mobility in community-dwelling older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51:1610–1614. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51512.x.
    1. Auger C, Demers L, Gélinas I, Routhier F, Jutai J, Guérette C, Deruyter F. Development of a French-Canadian version of the Life-Space Assessment (LSA-F): content validity, reliability and applicability for power mobility device users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4:31–41. doi: 10.1080/17483100802543064.
    1. Auger C, Demers L, Gélinas I, Miller WC, Jutai JW, Noreau L. Life-space mobility of middle-aged and older adults at various stages of usage of power mobility devices. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(5):765–773. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.01.018.
    1. Rushton PW, Miller WC, Kirby RL, Eng JJ. Measure for the assessment of confidence with manual wheelchair use (WheelCon-M) version 2.1: reliability and validity. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45:61–67. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1069.
    1. Sakakibara BM. Towards an Understanding of Self-efficacy with Using a Manual Wheelchair. 2013. . Accessed 2 Sept 2016.
    1. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA©): a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:695–699. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x.
    1. Dalrymple-Alford JC, MacAskill MR, Nakas CT, et al. The MoCA Well-suited screen for cognitive impairment in Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2010;75(19):1717–1725. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181fc29c9.
    1. Jette AM, Haley SM, Ni P, Olarsch S, Moed R. Creating a computer adaptive test version of the Late-Life Function & Disability Instrument. J Gerontol A Biol Med Sci. 2008;63(11):1246–1256. doi: 10.1093/gerona/63.11.1246.
    1. Jette AM, Kopits IM, McDonough CM, et al. Manual of Procedures of the Boston University Late Life Functioning and Disability Instrument, Computer Assisted Testing, (Version 1.04). Boston: Boston University; 2013. Available at . Assessed 11 Mar 2016.
    1. Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. Identification of elderly people with hearing problems. ASHA. 1983;25:37–42.
    1. Yueh BM, Shapiro N, MacLean CH, Shekelle PG. Screening and management of adult hearing loss in primary care: scientific review. JAMA. 2003;289:1976–1985. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.15.1976.
    1. Hoenig H, Pieper C, Zolkewitz M, Schenkman M, Branch LG. Wheelchair users are not necessarily wheelchair bound. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(4):645–654. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50158.x.
    1. Arthanat S, Yow Wu BW, Bauer SM, Lenker JA, Nochajski SM. Development of the Usability Scale for Assistive Technology-Wheeled Mobility: a preliminary psychometric evaluation. Technol Disabil. 2009;21(3):79–95.
    1. Giovagnoli AR, Del Pesce M, Mascheroni S, Simoncelli M, Laiacona ME, Capitani E. Trail making test: normative values from 287 normal adult controls. Ital J Neurol Sci. 1996;17:305–309. doi: 10.1007/BF01997792.
    1. Devos H, Akinwuntan AE, Nieuwboer A, Truijen S, Tant M, De Weerdt W. Screening for fitness to drive after stroke. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2011;76(8):747–756. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31820d6300.
    1. Grosvenor T. Primary Care Optometry. 5. St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2007.
    1. Falkenstein IA, Cochran DE, Azen SP, Dustin L, Tammewar AM, Kozak I, Freeman WR. Comparison of visual acuity in macular degeneration patients measured with Snellen and early treatment diabetic retinopathy study charts. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:319–323. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.05.028.
    1. Hussain B, Saleh GM, Sivaprasad S, Hammond CJ. Changing from Snellen to LogMAR: debate or delay? Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2006;34:6–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2006.01135.x.
    1. Kenward MG, Carpenter J. Multiple imputation: current perspectives. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007;16:199–218. doi: 10.1177/0962280206075304.
    1. Goldsmith CH. Preparing a statistical analysis plan. In: Bandari M, Robioneck B, editors. Advanced Conceptions in Surgical Research. Germany: George Thieme Verlag; 2012. pp. 139–142.
    1. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE, Nizam A. Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. 3. CA: Pacific Grove; 1998.
    1. Thorne S, Reimer Kirkham S, MacDonald-Emes J. Interpretive description: a noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20:169–177. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199704)20:2<169::AID-NUR9>;2-I.
    1. Thorne SE, Kirkham SR, O’Flynn-Magee K. The analytic challenge in interpretive description. Int J Qual Methods. 2004;3(1):1–11.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe