Authors : Bhavna S.; Kurinji Chelvan S.

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/2hznjjje

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26aug1141

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Background: Mobility assistive technology plays a vital role in enhancing mobility, independence, and quality of life among persons with neurological conditions. However, device abandonment remains a significant concern, often influenced by usability and user satisfaction.  Aim: To find out the usability and satisfaction of mobility assistive technology among persons with neurological conditions.  Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted among persons with neurological conditions using mobility assistive devices. Usability was assessed using the NATU Quest, and satisfaction was evaluated using the QUEST 2.0 questionnaire. The collected data was analysed.  Results: Overall usability and satisfaction were high, with mean NATU Quest and QUEST 2.0 scores of 4.37 ± 0.60 and 4.21 ± 0.52, respectively. Higher scores were observed among participants using devices outdoors, while longer device use was associated with lower usability and satisfaction. Devices obtained through hospitals, NGOs, and government schemes showed significantly better outcomes. Safety, comfort, effectiveness, and ease of use were highly rated, whereas follow-up and repair services received comparatively lower satisfaction.  Conclusion: Mobility assistive devices demonstrate high usability and satisfaction among persons with neurological conditions; however, service delivery gaps may negatively impact long-term outcomes. Strengthening follow-up, repairs, services and adopting user-centered provision models are essential to reduce device abandonment and promote sustained use.

Keywords : Mobility Assistive Technology, Neurological Conditions, Usability, NATU Quest, Satisfaction, QUEST 2.0.

References :

1. GBD 2021 Nervous System Disorders Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of disorders affecting the nervous system, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet Neurol. 2024;23(5):344-81. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(24)00038-3
2. India State-Level Disease Burden Initiative Neurological Disorders Collaborators. The burden of neurological disorders across the states of India: The Global Burden of Disease Study 1990–2019. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9:e1129–44.
3. Das R, Paul S, Mourya GK, Kumar N, Hussain M. Recent trends and practices toward assessment and rehabilitation of neurodegenerative disorders: insights from human gait. Front Neurosci. 2022;16:859298.
4. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: WHO; 2001.
5. Bonanno M, Saracino B, Ciancarelli I, et al., Assistive technologies for individuals with a disability from a neurological condition. Healthcare. 2025;13:1580.
6. World Health Organization, UNICEF. Global report on assistive technology. Geneva: WHO; 2022.
7. Alam F, Urme NA, Mamin FA. Commonly used assistive devices in neurological conditions. Int J Neurol Phys Ther. 2019;3(2):21–25.
8. Jiménez-Arberas E, Ordóñez Fernández FF. Discontinuation or abandonment of mobility assistive technology among people with neurological conditions. Rev Neurol. 2021;72:426–432.
9. Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5(1):36–45. 36
10. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9241-11:2018 Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. Geneva: ISO; 2018.
11. Squires LA, Williams N, Morrison VL. Matching and accepting assistive technology in multiple sclerosis: a focus group study with people with multiple sclerosis, carers and occupational therapists. J Health Psychol. 2019;24(9):1228–1240.
12. Martínez Pérez AM. Exploring barriers and facilitators to assistive technology use among Hispanics. University of Illinois at Chicago; 2016.
13. Juszczak M, et al., Effects of a powered exoskeleton in spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2018;24(4):336–342.
14. Senjam SS, et al., User satisfaction and dissatisfaction with assistive technology devices and services in India. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022;17(8):892–901.
15. Borgnis, et al., Available assistive technology outcome measures: a systematic review. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2023;10:e51124
16. Zhao N, et al., Quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2021;27(3):270–279.
17. Wressle E, Samuelsson K. User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scand J Occup Ther. 2004;11(3):143–150.
18. Chen CL, et al., User satisfaction with orthotic devices and service in Taiwan. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110661.
19. Durham J, et al., Users’ satisfaction with prosthetic and orthotic assistive devices in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(2):184–190. 37
20. Yurkewich A, et al., Myoelectric untethered robotic glove after stroke. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2020;7:1–14
21. Schmucker M, et al., Rollator usability from a nursing science perspective. Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 2025;9:100422
22. Magnusson L, Ahlström G. Patients’ satisfaction with lower-limb prosthetic and orthotic devices in Africa. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):102
23. Brady E, et al., Examining use and non-use of assistive technologies. Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst. 2013;801–810.
24. Geilen BG, et al., Quality of wheelchair services in rural Bangalore district, India. Afr J Disabil. 2020;9:732.
25. Jiménez-Arberas E. Psychosocial impact of mobility assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(5):531–538.
26. Karki J, et al., Access to assistive technology in Nepal, India and Bangladesh. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2023;18(1):8–16.
27. Ott J, et al., Scoping sex and gender in rehabilitation. Int J Equity Health. 2022;21:179
28. Kang D, et al., Usability tests for manual wheelchairs: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2025;14(9):3184.