An Evaluation of Sit to Stand Devices for Use in Rehabilitation

  • M. FrayEmail author
  • S. Hignett
  • A. Reece
  • S. Ali
  • L. Ingram
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)


There are many assistive devices to help with raising a person from a seat. These devices are considered active as they require some balance, trunk control and weightbearing ability. There is concern that this movement is mostly passive due to fixation at the trunk and knee. This study explores the movement patterns in sit to stand transfers active and assisted.

Study Design: A fully squared repeated measures design was use. All participants (n = 20) used all conditions (n = 7) in a balanced order. Transfers were recorded with; video recordings, a 6 dimensional force plate, hip, knee and ankle positions were recorded with motion capture. Subjective evaluations for comfort and security were completed. Physical data was compared with ANOVA calculations with Bonferroni corrections.

Results: Device G scored highest for comfort, knee support and overall preference. Sling movement had a negative effect on the sensations of comfort and security. The motion analysis of the flexible knee support showed:
  • People push into the floor and CoP moved towards the toe.

  • More anterior knee movement (P < 0.05).

  • More bodyweight through feet (P < 0.05).

  • Quicker transfer of weight onto feet.

  • Very low bodyweight was recorded in all lowering actions.

The use of a flexible knee support raised the subjective and physical performance of the assistive device and may improve rehabilitation responses.


Patient transfers Rehabilitation Assistive technology 


  1. Burnfield JM, McCrory B (2013) Comparative kinematic and electromyographic assessment of clinician- and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers in patients with stroke. Phys Ther 93:1331–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burnfield JM, Shu Y, Buster TW et al (2012) Kinematic and electromyographic analyses of normal and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers. Gait Posture 36:516–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campo M, Shiyko MP, Margulis H, Darragh AR (2013) The effect of a safe patient handling program on rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 94:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carr JH, Gentile AM (1994) The effect of arm movement on the biomechanics of standing up. Hum Mov Sci 13:175–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coghlin SS, McFadyen BJ (1994) Transfer strategies used to rise from a chair in normal and low back pain subjects. Clin Biomech 9:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hughes MA, Schenkman ML (1996) Chair rise strategy in the functionally impaired elderly. J Rehabil Res Dev 33:409–412Google Scholar
  7. International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. World Health Organization, Geneva (1980)Google Scholar
  8. Janssen W, Bussmann H, Henk S (2002) Determinants of the sit to stand movement. J Am Phys Ther Assoc Phys Ther 82:866–897Google Scholar
  9. Jeysurya J, Van der Loos M (2013) Comparison of seat, waist, and arm sit-to-stand assistance modalities in elderly population. Univ B C 50:835–844Google Scholar
  10. Mathiyakom K, McNitt Grey JL (2005) Modifying center of mass trajectory during sit-to-stand tasks redistributes the mechanical demand across the lower extremity joints. Clin Biomech 20:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Munton JS, Ellis MI, Wright V (1984) Use of electromyography to study leg muscle activity in patients with arthritis and in normal subjects during rising from a chair. Ann Rheum Dis 43:63–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pai YC, Rogers MW (1991) Speed variation and resultant joint torques during sit-to-stand. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 72:881–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rutherford DJ, Hurley ST, Hubley-Kozey C (2014) Sit-to-stand transfer mechanics in healthy older adults: a comprehensive investigation of a portable lifting-seat device. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 22:1–8Google Scholar
  14. Ruszala S, Musa S (2005) An evaluation of equipment to assist patient sit-to-stand activities in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy 91:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sibella F, Galli M (2003) Biomechanical analysis od sit to stand movement in normal and obese subjects. Clin Biomech 18:745–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schoen DC (2004) Low back pain. Orthop Nurs 23:154–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schenkman ML, Riley PO, Pieper C (1996) Sit to stand from progressively lower seat heights: alterations in angular velocity. Clin Biomech 11:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Slusser LR, Rice MS, Miller BK (2012) Safe patient handling curriculum in occupational therapy and occupational therapy assistant programs: a descriptive study of school curriculum within the United States of America. Work 42:385–392Google Scholar
  19. Sparkes V (2000) Physiotherapy for stroke rehabilitation: a need for evidence-based handling techniques: literature review. Physiotherapy 86:348–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stubbs DA, Buckle PW, Hudson MP et al (1986) Backing out: nurse wastage associated with back pain. Int J Nurs Stud 23:325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Fray
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Hignett
    • 1
  • A. Reece
    • 1
  • S. Ali
    • 1
  • L. Ingram
    • 1
  1. 1.Loughborough Design SchoolLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations