Comparison of seating, powered characteristics and functions and costs of electrically powered wheelchairs in a general population of users.

PURPOSE

To profile and compare the seating and powered characteristics and functions of electrically powered wheelchairs (EPWs) in a general user population including equipment costs.

METHOD

Case notes of adult EPW users of a regional NHS service were reviewed retrospectively. Seating equipment complexity and type were categorized using the Edinburgh classification. Powered characteristics and functions, including control device type, were recorded.

RESULTS

482 cases were included; 53.9% female; mean duration EPW use 8.1 years (SD 7.4); rear wheel drive 88.0%; hand joystick 94.8%. Seating complexity: low 73.2%, medium 18.0%, high 8.7%. Most prevalent diagnoses: multiple sclerosis (MS) 25.3%, cerebral palsy (CP) 18.7%, muscular dystrophy (8.5%). Compared to CP users, MS users were significantly older at first use, less experienced, more likely to have mid-wheel drive and less complex seating. Additional costs for muscular dystrophy and spinal cord injury users were 3-4 times stroke users.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first large study of a general EPW user population using a seating classification. Significant differences were found between diagnostic groups; nevertheless, there was also high diversity within each group. The differences in provision and the equipment costs across diagnostic groups can be used to improve service planning. Implications for Rehabilitation At a service planning level, knowledge of a population's diagnostic group and age distribution can be used to inform decisions about the number of required EPWs and equipment costs. At a user level, purchasing decisions about powered characteristics and functions of EPWs and specialised seating equipment need to be taken on a case by case basis because of the diversity of users' needs within diagnostic groups. The additional equipment costs for SCI and MD users are several times those of stroke users and add between 60 and 70% of the cost of basic provision.