Trial reportSpinal cord2026
A feasibility study of a shared control powered wheelchair training program for individuals with spinal cord injury.
Trial report in Spinal cord, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02320786 (Collaborative Power Mobility Innovative Learning OpporTunity), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Collaborative Power Mobility Innovative Learning OpporTunity (CoPILOT) - A Pilot Study of a New Training Approach (Phase 1)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of the Collaborative Power Mobility Innovative Learning OpporTunity (CoPILOT) wheelchair training protocol and intervention among new powerchair users with spinal injuries, focusing on feasibility metrics and clinical outcomes. STUDY
designAn evaluator-blind, parallel randomized controlled trial.
settingRehabilitation hospital/community setting in Vancouver, Canada.
methodsParticipants were randomized to CoPILOT or control group (the Wheelchair Skills Program (WSP)). Trained occupational therapists conducted sessions. Data included demographics and feasibility metrics (process, resource, management, treatment safety), as well as primary (Power Mobility Indoor Driving Assessment-PIDA) and secondary outcomes: Wheelchair Skills Test Questionnaire for Powered Wheelchairs-WST-Q-P (capacity and performance subscales), the Wheeling While Talking-WheelTalk task, and the Wheelchair Use Confidence Scale for Powered Wheelchair Users-WheelCon-P (Mobility and Social sub scores).
results10 participants (9 male), mean age (SD) was 56.9 years (17.40), and all had prior manual wheelchair use. Attendance (SD) averaged 7.75 sessions (3.49) for CoPILOT group and 8.8 (3.70) for the WSP group. Both groups had baseline and final PIDA scores above 90%. On the WST-Q-P capacity subscale, CoPILOT improved by 8.25% (SD = 19.75), whereas WSP improved by 10.8% (SD = 9.86); on the performance subscale, CoPILOT improved by 8.00% (SD = 19.88) compared to 19.8% (SD = 24.52) for WSP. WheelTalk times, rose by 36.16 s (SD = 45.71) in CoPILOT but declined by 33.46 s (SD = 36.58) in WSP. For WheelCon-P, Mobility sub score increased by 26.75 (SD = 15.33) in CoPILOT versus -18.2 (SD = 77.24) in WSP, and Social sub score changed by -5 (SD = 6.93) versus 4 (SD = 11.94), respectively. The retention rate was 90%, yet neither group achieved the ≥80% session-adherence goal.
conclusionCoPILOT showed promise in improving wheelchair skills and safety for new powerchair users with spinal injuries. However, recruitment and adherence challenges indicate a need for improved engagement and delivery methods. Further robust RCTs could compare CoPILOT's effectiveness with standard care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02320786.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41225155What 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.