Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Mark Schmeler

Publications and source records attributed to Mark Schmeler.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Durability, value, and reliability of selected electric powered wheelchairs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the durability, value, and reliability of selected electric powered wheelchairs (EPWs), purchased in 1998. DESIGN: Engineering standards tests of quality and performance. SETTING: A rehabilitation engineering center. SPECIMENS: Fifteen EPWs: 3 each of the Jazzy, Quickie, Lancer, Arrow, and Chairman models. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Wheelchairs were evaluated for durability (lifespan), value (durability, cost), and reliability (rate of repairs) using 2-drum and curb-drop machines in accordance with the standards of the American National Standards Institute and Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America. RESULTS: The 5 brands differed significantly (P<or=.05) in durability, value, and reliability, except in terms of reliability of supplier repairs. The Arrow had the highest durability, value, and reliability in terms of the number of consumer failures, supplier failures, repairs, failures, consumer repairs and failures, and supplier repairs and failures. The Lancer had the poorest durability and reliability, and the Chairman had the lowest value. K0014 wheelchairs (Arrow, Permobil) were significantly more durable than K0011 wheelchairs (Jazzy, Quickie, Lancer). No significant differences in durability with respect to rear-wheel-drive (Arrow, Lancer, Quickie), mid-wheel-drive (Jazzy), or front-wheel-drive (Chairman) wheelchairs were found. CONCLUSIONS: The Arrow consistently outperformed the other wheelchairs in nearly every area studied, and K0014 wheelchairs were more durable than K0011 wheelchairs. These results can be used as an objective comparison guide for clinicians and consumers, as long as they are used in conjunction with other important selection criteria. Manufacturers can use these results as a guide for continued efforts to produce higher quality wheelchairs. Care should be taken when making comparisons, however, because the 5 brands had different features. Purchased in 1998, these models may be used for several more years. In addition, problem areas in these models may still be present in newer models.

Electricity↗
PubMed2004

Push for power.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Electric Power Supplies↗
PubMed2003

Wheelchair seating: a state of the science report.

Regardless of the field, agenda-setting processes are integral to establishing research and development priorities. Beginning in 1998, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research mandated that each newly funded Rehabilitation Engineering and Research Center (RERC) hold a state-of-the-science consensus forum during the third year of its 5-year funding cycle. NIDRR's aim in formalizing this agenda-setting process was to facilitate the formulation of future research and development priorities for each respective RERC. In February 2001, the RERC on Wheeled Mobility, University of Pittsburgh, conducted one of the first such forums. The scope encompassed both current scientific knowledge and clinical issues. In preparation, expert interviews were carried out to establish the focus for the forum. Because a stakeholder forum on wheelchair technology had recently been held, opinion favored wheelchair seating as the focus and included the following core areas: seating for use in wheelchair transportation, seated postural control, seating discomfort, and tissue integrity management. The aim of this report is to present a summary of the workshop outcomes, describe the process, and increase awareness of this agenda-setting process in order to enhance future participation in a process that critically influences the field of wheeled mobility.

Persons with Disabilities↗
PubMed2003

Use of the Independence 3000 IBOT Transporter at home and in the community.

BACKGROUND: The INDEPENDENCE 3000 IBOT Transporter (IBOT) is an electronically stabilizing mobility device for people with disabilities. It operates in 4 functions: Standard, Balance (raised on 2 rear wheels), 4 Wheel (for inclines, curbs, and uneven terrain), and Remote (for loading into a vehicle). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to observe the IBOT at use in the home and in the community. METHODS: Data were obtained via observations by trained clinicians, data recorded from a computerized data logger, and reports from each expert. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 10 unimpaired nonwheelchair users (6 men, 4 women) and 4 expert wheelchair users (men with spinal cord injuries, T7-L1). The participants used the IBOT to perform a variety of activities, including holding eye-level discussions with colleagues and shopping by balancing on 2 wheels, going up and down steep ramps, traversing outdoor surfaces (eg, grass, dirt trails), and climbing curbs. OBSERVATIONS: The Balance and 4-Wheel functions were helpful and worked well. The IBOT required attention to control in the Standard function. The seat height was too high for most tables and desks, and the IBOT was challenging to use in the bathroom. CONCLUSION: The IBOT is a functional mobility device that expands the options of wheelchair users. It is most useful outdoors and where there is sufficient space to use its unique Balance function.

Activities of Daily Living↗