Views of American and Australian mobility device users and ambulant bus users regarding occupant restraint systems on public buses
- Authors: Unsworth, Carolyn , Baker, Anne , Brito, Sara , Das Neves, B. , Dickson, N. , Gohil, Apeksha , Kahandawa, Gayan , Naweed, Anjum , Timmer, Amanda
- Date: 2022
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Transport and Health Vol. 25, no. (2022), p.
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: Introduction: With an ageing population, increasing numbers of people are using mobility devices, such as wheelchairs or scooters, whilst travelling on public route buses. The regulations and availability of active (wheelchair tie down and occupant restraint systems or WTORS) and passive (rearward facing) mobility device restraint systems on buses varies between countries. To date few studies have investigated passenger feedback on the use of restraint systems. This study aimed to gather feedback about WTORS on buses from passengers where these are in use (United States) and not in routine use (Australia) to guide decisions on their introduction. Methods: A prospective study using a purpose-designed electronic survey. Participants, predominantly recruited by Qualtrics, comprised two groups; mobility device and ambulant bus users in two countries; Australia and the United States (US). Results: The 448 participants rated the top two most important factors when deciding if buses should have WTORS as safety and comfort. Ninety-two percent of respondents believed people using mobility devices should use a WTORS which was rated 7.66/10 (SD1.97) as effective to prevent injuries to self or others. Only a minority of participants (13.2%) had ever slid or fallen from their mobility device, or seen a person slide or fall (13.6%) while on a bus with no differences between countries despite WTORS not being in use in Australia. Respondents reported it was OK to delay a journey an average of 5.52 (SD 2.89) minutes to secure/release a restraint system, which compares favourably to literature-reported real time of one to 4 min. Conclusions: Although WTORS were widely perceived by participants as important for safety, questions concerning their effectiveness to prevent slide or tip remain. Prior to the introduction of any securement system in Australia, the effectiveness of passive occupant containment systems to prevent slide or tip also warrants investigation. © 2022
Effective long-term management of brachial plexus injury following surgery: what is needed from hand therapists’ perspectives
- Authors: Brito, Sara , White, Jennifer , Hill, Bridget , Thomacos, Nikos
- Date: 2022
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Hand Therapy Vol. 35, no. 2 (2022), p. 267-274
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: •Given the long-term recovery following BPI, consideration should be given to relevance of slow stream rehab and interdisciplinary care.•Consider upskilling or an interdisciplinary care model to assist hand therapists and the provision of pain management and psychological support.•Increased dissemination of resources to support hand therapists working with individuals following BPI and enhanced communication opportunities to develop networks both nationally and internationally. Traumatic, brachial plexus injuries (BPI) result represent a significant cost to the individual and society. Recovery involves multiple surgeries, takes years, and often results in permanent physical dysfunction. While the last couple of decades have seen advancements in surgical management, the BPI rehabilitation literature has not kept pace with these developments. We aim to explore the experience of public and privately employed hand therapists’ in delivering effective long-term rehabilitation services to inviduals with BPI in Australia. An interpretative qualitative study. Two focus groups were conducted with Australian hand therapists’ (n = 10). Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Three key themes were generated from the data. The first theme ‘Falling through the gaps: overlooked components of therapy for BPI’ captures participants’ thoughts on postinjury health care and rehabilitation services. The second ‘Developing a therapeutic alliance: underpinned by time and trust’ relates to the relationship building challenges and opportunities following trauma that will withstand the long-term recovery of individuals following BPI. The last theme, ‘Factors required for professional development: knowledge and support,’ considers the variation seen with these clients in relation to therapy needs and outcomes. The findings of this study highlight the need to better equip hand therapists’ skills and knowledge in responding to pain and psychological management post BPI. Our results reinforce the benefit of interdisciplinary models of care in the management of individuals with BPI.