ArticleArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2025
Women Veterans and Mobility Aids.
Article in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To conduct a needs assessment to learn about women Veterans' needs, priorities, preferences, and experiences with mobility assistive technology (MAT). Design: Cross-sectional survey study. Setting: National survey. Participants: Women veterans (age, ≥18y) receiving care from the Veterans Health Administration who received MAT in the last 5 years participated in an online survey (N=700). Interventions: None. Main Outcome Measures: The survey included questions regarding demographics, experiences with procurement, evaluation, and follow-up for MAT, and ability to participate in various activities. Results: Seven hundred women veterans responded to the online survey but due to missing responses only 593 surveys were analyzed. The most commonly used MAT included canes (26%), walkers (24%), and manual or power wheelchairs (29%). Activities for which their assistive mobility device did not meet their needs included housework (26%), leisure (22%), and social activities (19%). Some women veterans identified challenges with their device related to the design and lack of options when choosing a device. Although a majority of veterans reported positive feedback in procuring their MAT, there were opportunities for improvement in follow-up. Conclusions: Approximately 1 out of 5 women indicated that their devices did not meet some of their needs. The unique needs of women veterans should be considered during the design and provision of MAT, and education should be provided on maintenance of the MAT. Future research is warranted to develop possible solutions for these gaps with the goal of improving women veterans' experiences and function related to MAT.
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.