Opportunities to travel from one place to another in the community, or community mobility, are especially important for mobility device users’ ability to participate fully in society. However, contextual challenges to such mobility exist.
Purpose.
This study summarizes the literature on existing community mobility barriers and facilitators of mobility device users created by services, systems, and policies as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).
Method.
Arksey and O’Malley’s approach for scoping studies was used for the review. The extraction chart was organized following the ICF, and frequency counts were used to report the data.
Findings.
The findings suggest that certain factors, such as transportation, open-space planning, and architecture and construction, influence community mobility opportunities. However, little attention has been paid to services, systems, and policies in the research literature, limiting the knowledge on the subject.
Implications.
Further research is needed to examine the relationship between specific services, systems, and policies and mobility device users’ mobility within their communities.
References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate documents included in the scoping review.
2.
*AlmadaJ. F.RennerJ. S. (2015). Public transport accessibility for wheelchair users: A perspective from macro-ergonomic design. Work, 50, 531–541. doi:10.3233/WOR-131811
3.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2014). Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and process (3rd ed.). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(Suppl. 1), S1–S48. doi:10.5014/ajot.2014.682006
4.
ArkseyH.O’MalleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616
5.
*ArthanatS.NochajskiS. M.LenkerJ. A.BauerS. M.WuY. W. B. (2009). Measuring usability of assistive technology from a multicontextual perspective: The case of power wheelchairs. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 751–764. doi:10.5014/ajot.63.6.751
6.
Di StefanoM.StuckeyR.LovellR. (2012). Promotion of safe community mobility: Challenges and opportunities for occupational therapy practice. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 59, 98–102. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1630.2011.00993.x
7.
*EvcilA. N. (2009). Wheelchair accessibility to public buildings in Istanbul. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 4, 76–85. doi:10.1080/17483100802543247
*FerrariL.BerlingerioM.CalabreseF.ReadesJ. (2014). Improving the accessibility of urban transportation networks for people with disabilities. Transportation Research Part C, 45(C), 27–40. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2013.10.005
10.
*HammelJ.SouthallK.JutaiJ.FinlaysonM.KashindiG.FokD. (2013). Evaluating use and outcomes of mobility technology: A multiple stakeholder analysis. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8, 294–304. doi:10.3109/17483107.2012.735745
11.
*Hedberg-KristenssonE.IvanoffS. D.IwarssonS. (2007). Experiences among older persons using mobility devices. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2, 15–22. doi:10.1080/17483100600875197
12.
*HjelleK. M.VikK. (2011). The ups and downs of social participation: Experiences of wheelchair users in Norway. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33, 2479–2489. doi:10.3109/09638288.2011.575525
13.
*HoenigH.LandermanL. R.ShippK. M.GeorgeL. (2003). Activity restriction among wheelchair users. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51, 1244–1251. doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51408.x
14.
*Kántor-ForgáchV. (2010). Public transport prospective of people with reduced mobility in Hungary. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 4, 10–27.
15.
*KorotchenkoA.Hurd ClarkeL. (2013). Power mobility and the built environment: The experiences of older Canadians. Disability & Society, 29, 431–443. doi:10.1080/09687599.2013.816626
16.
*LaytonN. (2012). Barriers and facilitators to community mobility for assistive technology users. Rehabilitation Research and Practice, 2012, Article 454195. doi:10.1155/2012/454195
17.
*MayE.GarrettR.BallantyneA. (2010). Being mobile: Electric mobility-scooters and their use by older people. Ageing and Society, 30, 1219–1237. doi:10.1017/S0144686X10000334
18.
*MortensonW. B.HammellK. W.LutsA.SolesC.MillerW. C. (2015). The power of power wheelchairs: Mobility choices of community-dwelling, older adults. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 22, 394–401. doi:10.3109/11038128.2015.1049289
19.
*MortensonW. B.OliffeJ. L.MillerW. C.BackmanC. L. (2011). Grey spaces: The wheeled fields of residential care. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34, 315–329. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01371.x
20.
*PetterssonC.IwarssonS.BrandtÅ.NorinL.Månsson LexellE. (2014). Men’s and women’s perspectives on using a powered mobility device: Benefits and societal challenges. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 21, 438–446. doi:10.3109/11038128.2014.905634
21.
*PoriaY.ReichelA.BrandtY. (2010). The flight experiences of people with disabilities: An exploratory study. Journal of Travel Research, 49, 216–227. doi:10.1177/0047287509336477
22.
*ReidD.AngusJ.McKeeverP.MillerK.-L. (2003). Home is where their wheels are: Experiences of women wheelchair users. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 186–195. doi:10.5014/ajot.57.2.186
23.
*RipatJ. D.BrownC. L.EthansK. D. (2015). Barriers to wheelchair use in the winter. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96, 1117–1122. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2015.01.020
24.
ShakespeareT. (2015). Disability research today. New York, NY: Routledge.
*WesselsR. D.De WitteL. P.JedelooS.van den HeuvelW. P. M.van den HeuvelW. J. A. (2004). Effectiveness of provision of outdoor mobility services and devices in the Netherlands. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18, 371–378. doi:10.1191/0269215504cr755oa
28.
World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
