People with physical disabilities are far less active than recommended, but many are motivated for cycling on a tailor-made tricycle.
OBJECTIVE:
Does the acquisition of an adapted tricycle lead to better cycling outcomes, and are there differences associated with the application procedure?
METHODS:
An observational study was conducted with cohorts of participants applying for an adapted leg-driven tricycle via rehabilitation centres or local therapists. Questionnaires were answered electronically before applying and after having had the opportunity to use the new tricycle for at least 3 weeks. Non-parametric analyses were conducted in SPSS.
RESULTS:
Fifty participants (54% women) aged 5–79 years (M 31.5) with diverse disabilities responded. Forty-seven participants (94%) used their tricycle. Results showed a significant positive change in cycling frequency, cycling performance and satisfaction with cycling ( 0.01). The group of participants who applied at a Healthsports Centre reported higher performance and satisfaction with cycling both after testing them (pre-test) and after having used their new tricycles for some weeks (post-test).
CONCLUSIONS:
Acquisition of an adapted tricycle led to a higher amount of cycling, better cycling performance and higher satisfaction with cycling. The highest scores were seen among those who apply via a Healthsports Centre.
BedellGCosterWLawMLiljenquistKKaoY-CTeplickyR, et al. Community participation, supports, and barriers of school-age children with and without disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2013; 94(2): 315–23. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.09.024.
2.
Nordens Velferdssenter. Se, lytte og inkludere. Deltakelse for barn og unge med funksjonsnedsettelser i Norden. (See, listen and include. Participation for children and young people with disabilities in the Nordic countries). Stockholm; 2021.
3.
O’DonovanGBlazevichAJBorehamCCooperARCrankHEkelundU, et al. The ABC of physical activity for health: A consensus statement from the british association of sport and exercise sciences. J Sports Sci.2010; 28(6): 573–91. doi: 10.1080/02640411003671212.
4.
ImmsCGranlundMWilsonPHSteenbergenBRosenbaumPLGordonAM. Participation, both a means and an end: A conceptual analysis of processes and outcomes in childhood disability. Dev Med Child Neurol.2017; 59(1): 16–25. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.13237.
5.
SaebuMSørensenM. Factors associated with physical activity among young adults with a disability. Scand J Med Sci Sports.2011; 21(5): 730–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01097.x.
6.
GjessingBJahnsenRBStrandLINatvikE. Adaptation for participation! Children’s experiences with use of assistive devices in activities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol.2018; 13(8): 803–8. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2017.1384075.
7.
Oslo Economics. Aktivitetshjelpemidler til personer med fysisk funksjonsnedsettelse. (Assistive devices for people with physical disabilities). Oslo; 2020.
8.
NyquistAMoserTJahnsenR. Fitness, fun and friends through participation in preferred physical activities: Achievable for children with disabilities? Intl J Disabil Dev Educ.2016; 63(3): 334–56. doi: 10.1080/1034912X.2015.1122176.
9.
BergemS. Knowledge among important actors in the field of adaptive equipment for young people with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol.2020; 15(1): 109–18. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2018.1538393.
10.
RøeCDalenHLeinMBautz-HolterE. Comprehensive rehabilitation at beitostølen healthsports centre: Influence on mental and physical functioning. J Rehabil Med.2008; 40(6): 410–7. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0179.
11.
SherillC. Adapted Physical Activity, Recreation and Sport. 6 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2004.
12.
BanduraA. Social foundations of thought and action. The Health Psychology Reader; 2002: 94.
13.
WillisCNyquistAJahnsenRElliottCUllenhagA. Enabling physical activity participation for children and youth with disabilities following a goal-directed, family-centred intervention. Res Dev Disabil.2018; 77: 30–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2018.03.010.
14.
KurtzeNHemK-GSvardalÅSEideAH. Utrednings- og forskningsprosjekt om hjelpemiddelformidling, tilrettelegging og rehabilitering som fag -og forskningsfelt. (Study and research project on assistive technology, adaptation and rehabilitation as a discipline and research field). Sintef Report. Oslo; 2009.
15.
SchererMJGlueckaufR. Assessing the benefits of assistive technologies for activities and participation. Rehabil Psychol.2005; 50(2): 132–41. doi: 10.1037/0090-5550.50.2.132.
16.
ØstensjøSCarlbergEBVøllestadNK. The use and impact of assistive devices and other environmental modifications on everyday activities and care in young children with cerebral palsy. Disabil Rehabil.2005; 27(14): 849–61. doi: 10.1080/09638280400018619.
17.
ØienIFallangBØstensjøS. Everyday use of assistive technology devices in school settings. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol.2016; 11(8): 630–5. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2014.1001449.
18.
RavnebergBSöderströmS. Disability, society and assistive technology. Oxon and New York (NY): Taylor & Francis; 2017.
19.
PedersenHSöderströmSKermitP. ‘The fact that I can be in front of others, I am used to being a bit behind’: How assistive activity technology affects participation in everyday life. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol.2019: 1–9. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2019.1642391.
20.
PedersenHSöderströmSKermitP. Assistive activity technology as symbolic expressions of the self. Technol Disabil.2019; 31(3): 129–40. doi: 10.3233/TAD-190236.
21.
PickeringDMHorrocksLVisserKToddG. Adapted bikes – what children and young people with cerebral palsy told us about their participation in adapted dynamic cycling. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol.2013; 8(1): 30–7. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2012.680942.
22.
KingGLawMKingSHurleyPHannaSKertoyMRosenbaumPYoungN. Children’s Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE) and Preferences for Activities of Children (PAC). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment, Inc.; 2004.
23.
KingGLawMKingSHurleyPHannaSKertoyM, et al. Measuring children’s participation in recreation and leisure activities: Construct validation of the CAPE and PAC. Child Care Health Dev.2007; 33(1): 28–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00613.x.
24.
NordtorpHLNyquistAJahnsenRMoserTStrandLI. Reliability of the norwegian version of the children’s assessment of participation and enjoyment (CAPE) and preferences for activities of children (PAC). Phys Occup Ther Pediatr.2013; 33(2): 199–212. doi: 10.3109/01942638.2012.739269.
25.
BaksjøbergetPENyquistAMoserTJahnsenR. Having fun and staying active! Children with disabilities and participation in physical activity: A follow-up study. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr.2017; 37(4): 347–58. doi: 10.1080/01942638.2017.1281369.
26.
ImmsC. Review of the children’s assessment of participation and enjoyment and the preferences for activity of children. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr.2008; 28(4): 389–404. doi: 10.1080/01942630802307135.
27.
LawMBaptisteSCarswellAMcCollMAPolatajkoHPollockN. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Toronto: CATO Publications ACE; 1998.
28.
CarswellAMcCollMABaptisteSLawMPolatajkoHPollockN. The canadian occupational performance measure: A research and clinical literature review. Can J Occup Ther.2004; 71(4): 210–22. doi: 10.1177/000841740407100406.
29.
RoeDBrownTThyerL. Validity, responsiveness, and perceptions of clinical utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure when used in a sub-acute setting. Disabil Rehabil.2020; 42(19): 2772–89. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1573934.
30.
EyssenISteultjensMPOudTABoltEMMaasdamADekkerJ. Responsiveness of the Canadian occupational performance measure. J Rehabil Res Dev.2011; 48(5): 517–28. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2010.06.0110.
31.
NyquistAJ. Jeg kan delta!: barn med funksjonsnedsettelser og deltakelse i fysisk aktivitet – en multimetodestudie i en habiliteringskontekst. (I can participate!: children with disabilities and participation in physical activity – a mixed methods study in a habilitation context.) Oslo; 2012.
32.
Typeform [www.typeform.com].
33.
WillisCEReidSElliottCRosenbergMNyquistAJahnsenR, et al. A realist evaluation of a physical activity participation intervention for children and youth with disabilities: What works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how? BMC Pediatr.2018; 18(1): 1–15. doi: 10.1186/s12887-018-1089-8.
34.
International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Children and Youth version: ICF-CY. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007.
35.
NyquistAJahnsenRBMoserTUllenhagA. The coolest I know – a qualitative study exploring the participation experiences of children with disabilities in an adapted physical activities program. Disabil Rehabil.2020; 42(17): 2501–9. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1573937.
36.
RimmerJHRileyBWangERauworthAJurkowskiJ. Physical activity participation among persons with disabilities: Barriers and facilitators. Am J Prev Med.2004; 26(5): 419–25. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.02.002.
37.
ØstensjøSØienIFallangB. Goal-oriented rehabilitation of preschoolers with cerebral palsy – a multi-case study of combined use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and the Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS). Dev Neurorehabil.2009; 11(4): 252–9. doi: 10.1080/17518420802.
38.
ClaveringEKMcLaughlinJ. Children’s participation in health research: From objects to agents? Child Care Health Dev.2010; 36(5): 603–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01094.x.
