Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 88, Issue 3 , Pages 279-286, March 2007

Effect of Motorized Scooters on Physical Performance and Mobility: A Randomized Clinical Trial

  • Helen Hoenig, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Service, Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center, Durham, NC
    • Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Helen Hoenig, MD, MPH, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Service (117), Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center, 508 Fulton St, Durham, NC 27705
  • ,
  • Carl Pieper, DrPH

      Affiliations

    • Division of Biometry, Department of Community and Family Health, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
  • ,
  • Laurence G. Branch, PhD

      Affiliations

    • College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
  • ,
  • Harvey Jay Cohen, MD

      Affiliations

    • GRECC, Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center, Durham, NC
    • Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC

Abstract 

Hoenig H, Pieper C, Branch LG, Cohen HJ. Effect of motorized scooters on physical performance and mobility: a randomized clinical trial.

Objective

To investigate the effects of providing a motorized scooter on physical performance and mobility.

Design

Randomized clinical trial comparing scooter users with usual care.

Setting

One academic and 1 Veterans Affairs medical center.

Participants

Ambulatory, community-dwelling outpatients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis of the knee.

Intervention

Provision of a motorized scooter for 3 months.

Main Outcome Measures

Six-minute walk distance (6MWD) and mobility methods in diverse locations at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months, and accidents while using the scooter.

Results

The majority of scooter subjects (n=16/22 [72.7%]) used the scooter 4 or more days per week. The difference ± standard deviation between the 2 groups in change in 6MWD over the study period was not statistically significant (scooter users, 16.9±73.0m [55.5±239.6ft]; usual care, 17.2±72.5m [56.5±238.0ft], P=.55). Four (18.1%) scooter users reported 9 accidents. Over the study period, the proportion of persons reporting use of a scooter (provided by the study or otherwise available) increased in the scooter-users group (eg, food stores, 16.7% to 52.6%; doctor’s office, 0% to 35.7%) but not the usual-care group (food stores, 9.1% to 9.5%; doctor’s office, 0% to 0%).

Conclusions

Motorized scooters provided to ambulatory persons with arthritis were used intermittently. The greatest short-term risk from scooter usage appeared to be minor collisions.

Key Words: Activities of daily living, Assistive technology, Bedrest, Cardiovascular deconditioning, Durable medical equipment, Exercise, Mobility limitation, Occupational therapy, Osteoarthritis, Outcome and process assessment, Physical therapy, Randomized controlled trials, Rehabilitation, Residential mobility, Rheumatoid arthritis, Walking, Wheelchairs

 

 Supported in part by the Paul Beeson Faculty Scholar Program of the American Federation for Aging Research, the Duke University Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health (grant no. 2P60AG11268) and the Wheeled Mobility Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of Education (grant no. H133E030035-04). Pride Mobility Inc provided the motorized scooters at wholesale cost.No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.

PII: S0003-9993(06)01530-9

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.11.022

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 88, Issue 3 , Pages 279-286, March 2007