Usability study demonstrates high safety and satisfaction with a low-cost manual standing wheelchair in paraplegic individuals, suggesting a viable assistive option for low-resource settings.
Background Standing wheelchairs significantly improve mobility and independence, but their high-cost limits accessibility. To address this, we developed an low-cost manual standing wheelchair aimed at enhancing independence and quality of life for individuals with paralysis. This study evaluates the feasibility, usability, and acceptability of the wheelchair among individuals in low-economic settings. Methods Thirty paraplegic wheelchair users from the Centre for the Rehabilitation of the Paralysed, Savar, Bangladesh were purposively selected to assess the wheelchair’s usability. A wheelchair usability questionnaire using a Likert scale was administered, and qualitative feedback was gathered through an acceptability questionnaire. Results The material cost of the locally developed standing wheelchair was US$166, significantly lower than the median income in Bangladesh, making it affordable for most paraplegics. The study participants (26 males, 4 females; mean age: 30.8 ± 8.5 years) had a mean height of 165.02 ± 6.8 cm and weight of 57.3 ± 8.3 kg. They sustained a complete motor-injury (ASIA A/B) between T4-L2 spinal levels. Participants spent an average of 7.7 ± 1.2 hours per day using the wheelchair. Most participants felt safe (mean score: 8.4/10) and experienced minimal effort in operation (3.3/10). They reported increased confidence (7.7/10) and happiness (8.2/10) when standing, with a lower level of nervousness (2.4/10). Users anticipated increased involvement in household activities (7.3/10), and overall satisfaction was high (7.1/10). Conclusions The manual standing wheelchair is affordable, easy to operate, and well-accepted by users in rehabilitation settings. Further evaluation in community settings is recommended to confirm its broader feasibility and impact.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Taoheed et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: