Skip to main content
Log in

Mobility Challenges Among Older Adult Mobility Device Users

  • Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation (O Addison, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Geriatrics Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review describes recent research regarding challenges to mobility experienced by older adult mobility device users.

Recent Findings

Different elements that affect mobility in this population were highlighted using the Human Activity Assistive Technology model. Key constructs in this model include the human (personal factors); the desired activity (mobility); assistive technology (mobility devices); and context (physical and social environmental factors). Poor mobility skills and lack of mobility confidence are personal factors that can limit the places that older adults go. However, new mobility devices are being developed to facilitate independent mobility. The design of the built environment and poor signage are aspects of the physical environment that can constrain mobility and impair wayfinding. Likewise, social factors including funding and prescription policies can reduce access to devices and needed services, and stigma can cause older adults to self-limit their mobility.

Summary

Addressing these challenges could reduce the difficulties that users encounter while navigating the environment and facilitate the mobility and social participation of older adults.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Courtney-Long EA, Carroll DD, Zhang QC, et al. Prevalence of disability and disability type among adults--United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(29):777–83. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26225475.

  2. Musich S, Wang SS, Ruiz J, Hawkins K, Wicker E. The impact of mobility limitations on health outcomes among older adults. Geriatr Nurs (Minneap). 2018;39(2):162–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferrucci L, Cooper R, Shardell M, Simonsick EM, Schrack JA, Kuh D. Age-related change in mobility: Perspectives from life course epidemiology and geroscience. Journals Gerontol - Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71(9):1184–94.

  4. Gell NM, Wallace RB, LaCroix AZ, Mroz TM, Patel K V. Mobility device use in older adults and incidence of falls and worry about falling: findings from the 2011-2012 national health and aging trends study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(5):853–9.

  5. Smith EM, Giesbrecht EM, Mortenson WB, Miller WC. Prevalence of wheelchair and scooter use among community-dwelling Canadians. Phys Ther [Internet]. 2016;96(8):1135–42. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medc&NEWS=N&AN=26847009. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  6. Charette C, Best KL, Smith EM, Miller WC, Routhier F. Walking aid use in Canada: Prevalence and demographic characteristics among community-dwelling Users. Phys Ther [Internet]. 2018;98(7):571–7. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=prem&NEWS=N&AN=29548038. Accessed 6 March 2019.

  7. Bath PA, Deeg D. Social engagement and health outcomes among older people: introduction to a special section. Eur J Ageing. 2005;2(1):24–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Cook AM, Polgar JM. Assistive technologies: principles and practice. Elsevier Health Sciences;2015;592.

  9. Giesbrecht E. Application of the human activity assistive technology model for occupational therapy research. Aust Occup Ther J. 2013;60(4):230–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Williams PA. deWit’s fundamental concepts and skills for nursing. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Peterson LJ, Meng H, Dobbs D, Hyer K. Gender differences in mobility device use among U.S. older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci [Internet]. 2017;72(5):827–35. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medc&NEWS=N&AN=27495837. Accessed 6 March 2019.

  12. Tshiswaka DI, Clay SL, Chiu CY, Alston R, Lewis A. Assistive technology use by disability type and race: Exploration of a population-based health survey. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(2):124–32.

  13. Clay SL, Alston R. Assistive technology use and veterans: An examination of racial differences between Whites and Blacks using the HAAT model. J Vocat Rehabil. 2016;45(2):159–71.

  14. •• Labbé D, Mortenson W Ben, Rushton PW, Demers L, Miller WC. Mobility and participation among ageing powered wheelchair users: Using a lifecourse approach. Ageing and Society. 2018;1–17. This paper reveals how the use of a mobility device by older adults changes over the life course and emphasizes the need for continuous evaluation to accommodate their needs adequately. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X18001228.

  15. Tu CJ, Liu L, Wang W, Du HP, Wang YM, Xu YB, et al. Effectiveness and safety of wheelchair skills training program in improving the wheelchair skills capacity: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(12):1573–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. MacGillivray MK, Sawatzky BJ, Miller WC, Routhier F, Kirby RL. Goal satisfaction improves with individualized powered wheelchair skills training. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(6):558–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirby RL, Miller WC, Routhier F, Demers L, Mihailidis A, Polgar JM, et al. Effectiveness of a wheelchair skills training program for powered wheelchair users: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(11):2017–26.

  18. •• Miller WC, Best KL, Eng JJ, Routhier F. Influence of peer-led wheelchair training on wheelchair skills and participation in older adults: Clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled feasibility trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;S0003-9993(18):31472–2. Participants in the experimental group of this trial of peer lead wheelchair mobility training performed more skills after the trial and continued to use almost 75% of these skills 6 months later while there was no change in the control group, which suggests peer training may be beneficial.

  19. Giesbrecht E, Miller WC. Clinical benefits of an mhealth wheelchair skills training program for older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(10):e80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lam JF, Gosselin L, Rushton PW. Use of virtual technology as an intervention for wheelchair skills training: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(11):2313–41.

  21. Louie DR, Eng JJ, Lam T, Spinal Cord Injury Research Evidence (SCIRE) Research Team. Gait speed using powered robotic exoskeletons after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and correlational study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12(1):82.

  22. Borisoff J, Khalili M, Mortenson WB, Van der Loos HFM. Exoskeletons as an assistive technology for mobility and manipulation. In: Encarnação P, Cook A, Simpson R, Adams K, Rios A, Alvarez L, editors. Robotic Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2017. p. 179–212.

  23. Federici S, Meloni F, Bracalenti M, De Filippis ML. The effectiveness of powered, activelower limb exoskeletons in neurorehabilitation: A systematic review. NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;37(3):321–40.

  24. Louie DR, Eng JJ. Powered robotic exoskeletons in post-stroke rehabilitation of gait: a scoping review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13(53). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-016-0162-5.

  25. Fisahn C, Aach M, Jansen O, Moisi M, Mayadev A, Pagarigan KT, et al. The effectiveness and safety of exoskeletons as assistive and rehabilitation devices in the treatment of neurologic gait disorders in patients with spinal cord injury: A systematic review. Glob Spine J. 2016;6(8):822–41.

  26. Schmidt R, Lee T. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. 4th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2005.

  27. Spiess MR, Steenbrink F, Esquenazi A. Getting the best out of advanced rehabilitation technology for the lower limbs: Minding motor learning principles. PM R. 2018;10(9S2):S165–73.

  28. Sakakibara BM, Miller WC. Prevalence of low mobility and self-management self-efficacy in manual wheelchair users and the association with wheelchair skill. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(7):1360–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Sakakibara BM, Miller WC, Eng JJ, Backman CL, Routhier F. Preliminary examination of the relation between participation and confidence in older manual wheelchair users. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(4):791–4.

  30. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Self-Control. W.H. Freeman and Comapny. 1997.

  31. Danks KA, Pohlig RT, Roos M, Wright TR, Reisman DS. Relationship between walking capacity, biopsychosocial factors, self-efficacy, and walking activity in persons poststroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2016;40(4):232–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Miller WC, Speechley M, Deathe AB. Balance confidence among people with lower-limb amputations. Phys Ther. 2002;82(9):856–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. West BA, Bhat G, Stevens J, Bergen G. Assistive device use and mobility-related factors among adults aged ≥ 65 years. J Safety Res. 2015;55:147–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Mortenson W Ben, Miller WC. The wheelchair procurement process: Perspectives of clients and prescribers. Can J Occup Ther. 2008;75(3):167–75.

  35. Sawatzky B, Mortenson W. Ben, Wong S. Learning to use a rear-mounted power assist for manual wheelchairs. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(8):772–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wong S, Mortenson B, Sawatzky B. Starting and stopping kinetics of a rear mounted power assist for manual wheelchairs. Assist Technol. 2019;31(2):77–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mattie J, Borisoff J, Miller WC, Noureddin B. Characterizing the community use of an ultralight wheelchair with “on the fly” adjustable seating functions: A pilot study. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173662.

  38. Morone G, Annicchiarico R, Iosa M, et al. Overground walking training with the i-Walker, a robotic servo-assistive device, enhances balance in patients with subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13(1):47.

  39. Shin J, Rusakov A, Meyer B. SmartWalker: An intelligent robotic walker. J Ambient Intell Smart Environ. 2016;8(4):383–98.

  40. Gross HM, Scheidig A, Debes K, Einhorn E, Eisenbach M, Mueller S, et al. ROREAS: Robot coach for walking and orientation training in clinical post-stroke rehabilitation—prototype implementation and evaluation in field trials. Auton Robots. 2017;41(3):679–98.

  41. Leaman J, La HM. A comprehensive review of smart wheelchairs: past, present, and future. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mulky RS, Koganti S, Shahi S, Liu K. Autonomous scooter navigation for people with mobility challenges. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Computing (ICCC). IEEE Computer Society; 2018. p. 87–90.

    Google Scholar 

  43. •• Rushton PW, Mortenson BW, Viswanathan P, Wang RH, Miller WC, Hurd Clarke L. Intelligent power wheelchair use in long-term care: potential users’ experiences and perceptions. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(7):740–6. https://www.vchri.ca/research-study/collaborative-power-mobilityinnovative-learning-opportunity-copilot-pilot-study-new . Accessed 1 March 2019. This study used a Wizard of Oz methodology in which the technology developers faked, rather than made a power wheelchair that could be governed by different control strategies. The remote control system that controlled the chair has since been trialed as a potential training tool to promote errorless learning .

  44. Prescott M, Mortenson WB. Barriers and burden to community mobility for people who use assistive mobility devices. Salt Lake City, Utah: American Occupational Therapist Association; 2018.

  45. Conger SA, Bassett DR. A compendium of energy costs of physical activities for individuals who use manual wheelchairs. Adapt Phys Act Q. 2011;28(4):310–25.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Patel N, Batten T, Roberton A, Enki D, Wansbrough G, Davis J. A comparison of energy consumption between the use of a walking frame, crutches and a stride-on rehabilitation scooter. Foot. 2016;28:7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Morales E, Gamache S, Routhier F, Rousseau J, Doyle O. Pilot study to measure wheelchair users’ space requirements in the bathroom. J Enabling Technol. 2018;12(3):129–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Abdullah SJ, Shaikh Mohammed J. Modeling and simulation of two wheelchair accessories for pushing doors. Assist Technol [Internet]. 2018;30(4):165–75. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=prem&NEWS=N&AN=28346064. Accessed 15 March 2019.

  49. Ahrentzen S, Tural E. The role of building design and interiors in ageing actively at home. Build Res Inf [Internet]. 2015;43:582–601.

  50. Ben Mortenson W, Oliffe JL, Miller WC, Backman CL. Grey spaces: the wheeled fields of residential care. Sociol Health Illn. 2012;34(3):315–29.

  51. Botticello AL, Tulsky D, Heinemann A, Charlifue S, Kalpakjian C, Slavin M, et al. Contextualizing disability: a cross-sectional analysis of the association between the built environment and functioning among people living with spinal cord injury in the United States. Spinal Cord [Internet]. 2018; Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=30108377. Accessed 29 March 2019.

  52. Giesbrecht EM, Smith EM, Mortenson W Ben, Miller WC. Needs for mobility devices, home modifications and personal assistance among Canadians with disabilities. Heal Reports. 2017;28(8):9–15.

  53. Hums MA, Schmidt SH, Novak A, Wolff EA. Universal design: moving the Americans with disabilities act from access to inclusion. J Leg Asp Sport. 2016;26(1):36–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. •• Bigonnesse C, Mahmood A, Chaudhury H, Mortenson WB, Miller WC, Martin Ginis KA. The role of neighborhood physical environment on mobility and social participation among people using mobility assistive technology. Disabil Soc. 2018;33(6):866–93. This systematic review highlights how features of the environment impact the mobility and social participation of people using mobility assistive technology.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ripat J, Colatruglio A. Exploring winter community participation among wheelchair users:an online focus group. Occup Ther Heal care [Internet]. 2016;30(1):95–106. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med8&NEWS=N&AN=26295488. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  56. Borisoff JF, Ripat J, Chan F. Seasonal patterns of community participation and mobility of wheelchair users over an entire year. Arch Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 2018;99(8):1553–60. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=prem&NEWS=N&AN=29580935. Accessed 6 March 2019.

  57. D’Souza C, Paquet VL, Lenker JA, Steinfeld E. Self-reported difficulty and preferences of wheeled mobility device users for simulated low-floor bus boarding, interior circulation and disembarking. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol [Internet]. 2017;1–14. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=29130752. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  58. Marquez DX, Hunter RH, Griffith MH, Bryant LL, Janicek SJ, Atherly AJ. Older adult strategies for community wayfinding. J Appl Gerontol. 2017 ;36(2):213–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Claessen MHG, Visser-Meily JMA, de Rooij NK, Postma A, van der Ham IJM. The wayfinding questionnaire as a self-report screening instrument for navigation-related complaints after stroke: internal validity in healthy respondents and chronic mild stroke patients. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2016 ;31(8):839–54.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Tannert B, Schöning J. Disabled, but at what cost? In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services - MobileHCI ‘18. New York,: ACM Press; 2018. p. 1–7.

  61. Prescott M, Garside N, Tan P, Mortenson WB. Exploring the mobility behaviours of people who use wheeled mobility devices in familiar and unfamiliar environments (Unpublished manuscript). 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ulrich S, Grill E, Flanagin VL. Who gets lost and why: a representative cross-sectional survey on sociodemographic and vestibular determinants of wayfinding strategies. Kao C-L, editor. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0204781.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Vandenberg AE, Hunter RH, Anderson LA, Bryant LL, Hooker SP, Satariano WA. Walking and walkability: is wayfinding a missing link? Implications for public health practice. J Phys Act Heal. 2016;13(2):189–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Völkel T, Weber G. A new approach for pedestrian navigation for mobility impaired users based on multimodal annotation of geographical data. Univers Access Human-Computer Interact Ambient Interact. 2007;Part II(Proceedings of the 7th HCI International). p. 575–84.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  65. Hashemi M, Karimi HA. Collaborative personalized multi-criteria wayfinding for wheelchair users in outdoors. Trans GIS. 2017 ;21(4):782–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Karimi HA, Zhang L, Benner JG. Personalized accessibility map (PAM): a novel assisted wayfinding approach for people with disabilities. Ann GIS. 2014;20(2):99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kasemsuppakorn P, Karimi HA, Ding D, Ojeda MA. Understanding route choices for wheelchair navigation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(3):198–210.

  68. Hunter RH, Anderson LA, Belza BL. Introduction to community wayfinding. In: Community wayfinding: pathways to understanding. Berlin: Springer; 2016. p. 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Maus M, Lindeman DA, Satariano WA. Wayfinding, mobility, and technology for an aging society. In: Community wayfinding: pathways to understanding. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 153–67.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Mandel C, Laue T. Brain-Computer SA-SW and, 2018 undefined. In: Smart-wheelchairs. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  71. Krieg-Brückner B, Mandel C, Budelmann C, Gersdorf B, Martínez AB. Indoor and outdoor mobility assistance. In: Ambient assisted living. Berlin: Springer; 2015. p. 33–52.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  72. Rodriguez-Sanchez MC, Martinez-Romo J. GAWA – Manager for accessibility wayfinding apps. Int J Inf Manage. 2017;37(6):505–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Haselwandter EM, Corcoran MP, Folta SC, Hyatt R, Fenton M, Nelson ME. The built environment, physical activity, and aging in the United States: a state of the science review. J Aging Phys Act. 2015;23(2):323–9.

  74. Charette C, Routhier F, McFadyen BJ. Visuo-locomotor control in persons with spinal cord injury in a manual or power wheelchair for direction change and obstacle circumvention. Exp Brain Res. 2017;235(9):2669–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Evcil AN. Barriers and preferences to leisure activities for wheelchair users in historic places. Tour Geogr. 2018;20(4):698–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Lu Y, Karimi H. Real-time sidewalk slope calculation through integration of GPS trajectory and image data to assist people with disabilities in navigation. ISPRS Int J Geo-Information. 2015;4(2):741–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Comai S, De Bernardi E, Matteucci M, Salice F. Maps for easy paths (MEP): enriching maps with accessible paths using MEP traces. In: Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, LNICST; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Neves B, Amaro F. Too old for technology? How the elderly of Lisbon use and perceive ICT. J Community Informátics. 2012;8(1):1-12.

  79. Evernden J. Wayfinding in Sydney trialling tactile street name signs. Access by Des. 2008;(115):25–6.

  80. Carattin E, Lovreglio R, Ronchi E, Nilsson D. Affordance-based evaluation of signage design for areas of refuge. In: Interflam 2016 Fire Science and Engineering Conference [Internet]. London; 2016. p. 781–6. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elisabetta_Carattin/publication/304783867_Affordance-Based_Evaluation_of_Signage_Design_for_Areas_of_Refuge/links/577ad89708aece6c20fbdb69.pdf.

  81. Chemero A. An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecol Psychol. 2003;15(2):181–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Motamedi A, Wang Z, Yabuki N, Fukuda T, Michikawa T. Signage visibility analysis and optimization system using BIM-enabled virtual reality (VR) environments. Adv Eng Informatics. 2017;32:248–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Shneier M. Road sign detection and recognition. In: Procedings Volume 6230, Unmanned Systems Technology VIII. Florida: SPIE. Digital Library; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Callahan MK, Cowan RE. Relationship of fitness and wheelchair mobility with encounters, avoidances, and perception of environmental barriers among manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 2018;99(10):2007–2014.e3 Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=prem&NEWS=N&AN=29981312. Accessed 6 March 2019.

  85. James L, Shing J, Mortenson W Ben, Mattie J, Borisoff J. Experiences with and perceptions of an adaptive hiking program. Disabil Rehabil [Internet]. 2018;40(13):1584–90. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=28325069. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  86. Burns N, Watson N, Paterson K. Risky bodies in risky spaces: disabled people’s pursuit of outdoor leisure. Disabil Soc. 2013;28(8):1059–73.https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.749180

  87. Park BJ, Furuya K, Kasetani T, Takayama N, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y. Relationship between psychological responses and physical environments in forest settings. Landsc Urban Plan. 2011;102(1):24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Berthelette M, Mann DD, Ripat J, Glazebrook CM. Assessing manual wheelchair caster design for mobility in winter conditions. Assist Technol [Internet]. 2018:1–7. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=29667534.

  89. Ferreras J. In Vancouver, wheelchair users have just been given a way to roll over sand at the beach [Internet]. Global News. 2018; [cited 2019 Mar 8]. Available from: https://globalnews.ca/news/4287688/vancouver-beaches-wheelchairs/%0D. Accessed 15 March 2019.

  90. United Nations. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol [Internet]. 2006. Available from: http://www.un.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  91. United Nations. Rights of persons with disabilities: report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities [Internet]. Vol. A/HRC/40/5. 2019. Available from: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/40/54.

  92. Smith EM, Roberts L, McColl MA, Martin Ginis KA, Miller WC. National evaluation of policies governing funding for wheelchairs and scooters in Canada. Can J Occup Ther. 2018;85(1):46–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Jonasdottir SK, Polgar JM. Services, systems, and policies affecting mobility device users’ community mobility: a scoping review: Services, systemes et politiques influencant la mobilite dans la communaute des utilisateurs d’aides a la mobilite : examen de la portee. Can J Occup Ther [Internet]. 2018;85(2):106–16. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=29661073. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  94. Arim R. A profile of persons with disabilities among Canadians aged 15 years or older, 2012. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89–654-X. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  95. de Laat FA, van Heerebeek B, van Netten JJ. Advantages and disadvantages of interdisciplinary consultation in the prescription of assistive technologies for mobility limitations. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol [Internet]. 2018;1–5. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=29589478. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  96. Saltes N. Navigating disabling spaces: challenging ontological norms and the spatialization of difference through ‘Embodied Practices of Mobility. Mobilities. 2018;13(1):81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Ravneberg B, Söderström S. Disability, society and assistive technology. First. Disability, Society and Assistive Technology. London: Routledge; 2017. p 1–114.

  98. Spence R. Turning barriers into bridges: improving accessibility to small businesses in Vancouver. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Mortenson W Ben, Hoag E, Higgins R, Emery R, Joyce L. Stakeholders’ perspectives related to the development of a scooter training program. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(4):289–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Dr. Mortenson is funded via New Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Routhier is funded by an investigator award from Fonds de recherche du Québec en santé.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Ben Mortenson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

W. Ben Mortenson reports a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; and personal fees from consultation to the Kessler Foundation.

Oladele A. Atoyebi, Delphine Labbé, Mike Prescott, Atiya Mahmood, François Routhier, and William C. Miller each declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Atoyebi, O.A., Labbé, D., Prescott, M. et al. Mobility Challenges Among Older Adult Mobility Device Users. Curr Geri Rep 8, 223–231 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13670-019-00295-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13670-019-00295-5

Keywords

Navigation