Back

Feasibility, Usability, and Acceptability of a Novel Open-source Manual Standing Wheelchair in Low Resource Settings

Taoheed, F.; Parvez, S.; Rahman, A.; Hossain, M.; Hossain, M. A.; Haque, M. O.; Taylor, V. A.; Hossain, M. S.; Alam, M.

2025-03-07 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2025.03.05.25323410 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundStanding 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. MethodsThirty paraplegic wheelchair users from the Centre for the Rehabilitation of the Paralysed, Savar, Bangladesh were purposively selected to assess the wheelchairs usability. A wheelchair usability questionnaire using a Likert scale was administered, and qualitative feedback was gathered through an acceptability questionnaire. ResultsThe 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). ConclusionsThe 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.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.