This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Ballinger, C. Articles by McLellan, D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Ballinger, C. Articles by McLellan, D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Evaluating equipment for people with disabilities: user and technical perspectives on basic commodes

Disability Equipment Assessment Centre, Southampton General Hospital

RM Pickering

Department of Medical Statistics and Computing, University of Soutampton

S. Bannister

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Southampton

S. Gore

Southampton General Hospital, Southampton

DL McLellan

Southampton General Hospital, Southampton

Disabled people often do not use the equipment supplied to them. Past work indicates that there are many reasons for this, including the low priority given to user views by the designers and manufacturers of such equipment. A number of different methodologies have been used to evaluate equipment. This paper describes an evaluation of basic commodes, a project funded by the Medical Devices Agency, Department of Health, in which both a user survey and technical tests were employed.

A sample of 18 basic commodes, divided into four categories, was evaluated by 40 users, a questionnaire being administered to determine user views. A series of 13 technical tests was also carried out.

The results showed that the preferred commodes as indicated by the users did not necessarily perform well in the technical tests, with at least one of the products having potentially serious design faults. It is suggested that users, therapists and engineers each have an essential contribution to make in the evaluation of equipment for disabled people.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 9, No. 2, 157-166 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/026921559500900211


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?