ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
The usability of two mobile health assistive technologies for wheelchair-related in-seat movement and pressure.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wheelchair user and clinician-centered design of a mobile pressure mapping app and dashboard: A pre-implementation development study.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2026Article
- Stakeholder Perspectives on mHealth Technologies to Prevent Sitting-Acquired Pressure Injuries in Long-Term Care Facilities: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Self-managed digital technologies for pressure injury prevention in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic scoping review.Spinal cord · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to understand the degree to which two different mobile health assistive technologies, AW-Shift© and Sensoria® Mat, addressed seven constructs for managing wheelchair-related in-seat movement and pressure. Methods: After using each intervention system, participants answered questions regarding the general usability and usefulness of the systems. Results: System Usability Survey scores ranged from 5 (Poor) to 97.5 (Excellent), with a median response of 60.0 (Okay) for AW-Shift© and 76.3 (Good) for Sensoria® Mat. Participants reported using AW-Shift© to check areas of high pressure on their cushion, the quality of their weight shifts, and their posture significantly more often than to check the condition of their cushion or to track their movement goals. Participants reported using Sensoria® Mat to check the quality and number of weight shifts, and their posture significantly more often than to check the condition of their cushion. Conclusions: The findings of this study highlight that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and that different subpopulations of wheelchair users may have different needs and preferences. Optimizing the design for specific cohorts or constructs can result in an effective product that consistently provides meaningful and accurate information about behavior and performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.