1 / 25

Mobility Device s in Everyday Life - very old women’s experiences

Mobility Device s in Everyday Life - very old women’s experiences. Signe Tomsone and Charlotte Löfqvist. Aim.

velma
Download Presentation

Mobility Device s in Everyday Life - very old women’s experiences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MobilityDevices in Everyday Life- very old women’sexperiences Signe Tomsone and Charlotte Löfqvist

  2. Aim This presentation is based on two studies; with the aims to explore how very old single living women experience the use of mobility devices over time, in relation to everyday life. In Latvia Paper in progress In Sweden Löfqvist, C., Nygren, C., Brandt, Å., & Iwarsson, S. (2008). Very old Swedish women’s experiences of mobility devices in everyday occupation – A longitudinal case study. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, available electronic, 19, 1-12.

  3. WHAT are mobility devices?

  4. WHY usemobilitydevices?

  5. WHY use mobility devices? • Mobility • Safety • Compensatefor functional limitations -independence -active, participate

  6. WHY research on mobility devices? • Demographic changes • Most users among the ageing population • Most of them living in their own homes • To plan for and meet the needs ….. • Increase the knowledge on use and need for mobility devices for the very old • Explore experiences in everyday life • How use changes over time during the ageing process

  7. Proportion of MD users and change in use over one year %

  8. Proportion of MD users and change in use over 1 and 9 year %

  9. Methods • Design - mixed methods case studies from a longitudinal perspective, utilizing a combination of quantitative and qualitative data sources for each informant and integrated methods in analyzing data. • Informants - purposeful sampling aiming for three information rich women – all having varied experience of MD use. • Data collection - existing survey data (sampling and case studies), in-depth interviews (case studies), observations.

  10. Case description-Latvia Helena (90 years) • Poorperceivedhealth and mobility, has chronicdiseases. Assistancein dailyactivities for severalyears- formal, as well as informal. • Uses cane indoors. Have 4-wheel walker, but do not use it approximately one year now, because do not go outdoors anymore.

  11. Case description - Latvia Elza (89 years) • Since childhood experienced polio effect as variety of functional limitations, poor perceivedhealthand mobility. Assistancein daily activities for several years- earlier formal, recently only informal. • Regularly used different assistive devices- orthotics, orthopedic shoes, crutches. Had active social life but recently have not been outdoors approximately 3 years.

  12. Case description - Latvia Helga (89 years) • Goodpereceivedhealth and mobility, relativelyhealthy over lifetime. Need for assistance in daily activities increased recently- get informal assistance. • Tried several MD, but no optimal solutions. Had active social life but recently stopped going outdoors.

  13. Findings (Latvia) • Expressions about MD was very pragmatic- based on facts, little about subjective attitude or feelings; • Limited possibilities to choose MD and get advice for MD use; • The assistance in daily activities is in great importance- informal help, as well as formal help; • Striving to keep independence and autonomy in current situation.

  14. Findings (Latvia) • Difficulttocombine MD Yes, it is stable (walker), with that I could go… Yes, I walked on the street edge. And I watched, not to disturb the people around. …… I think that cane is more practical… That is the problem, in flat, it takes extra time. If I take it (walker) now to get to the kitchen.

  15. Findings • Adaptive strategies for dailyactivities and MD use I alwayshavetorearrangethe furniturehere as well as in kitchen, to be ableto get arround and hold on. I wasableto walk onlywiththatcrutch, butwhen I turnedto 89, I can not morewithone hand, yes. I shouldholdwithboth hands if I stand or walk. ….. I can not go strightfrom thatplacetothere. I should go arroundto get there and back.

  16. Findings • Physicalenvironment- indoors and outdoors I think, there is no good equipment to help me. That walker too, I should put it somewhere if I go for bathing. Also if I go to kitchen, to eat, I should leave it somewhere, but there is no space.

  17. Findings • Social environment Yes, I bought it myself (walker), but it is heavy, I need the helptoovercome the stairs…. Int: Does there is someonewhocanhelptoovercome the stairs? Yes, I waituntillsomeone is coming in or outof house. Once I was on street and therewasnobody for long time. I managedmyselfbut I wastootoiledto get in.

  18. Cases description Sweden Elisa (94 years) – rollator use already at baseline. Increase dependence on MD. Mary (86 years) - from healthy, mobile and active to use of three different MDs – still social active. Clare (93 years) – most frail – rappid changes from cane outdoors to more supportive rollator . The cases illustrate how different factorsinteract and impact on the useof MD in everydaylife over time

  19. Findings • Personal factors and strategies; - Howadjust, cope and adaptto situations – crucial for the roleMD could play in everydaylife

  20. ‘‘I wouldn’t manage very well without the rollator, I’m sure of that. I must have . . . the rollator is absolutely essential for me, I can use it for a lot of things, not just walking.’’

  21. Attitudes; Rollator describeddifferently – accept – possibility – embedded in everydaylife, yetwith ambivalente feelings. ‘‘I wouldn’t get out without the rollator but I hate to be dependent on it.’’

  22. ‘‘It’s troublesome with the rollator. I can get where I want to but I think it’s troublesome for other people - there’s always someone who has to step aside to make way for the rollator.’’

  23. Other factors impacting on the use • Social factors. • Technicalaspects. • Weatherconditions. • Environmentalbarrriershardertoovercome – need for supportiveenvironment and combinations of MDs tooptimizeuse.

  24. Conclusion • Complex • Impact on activity and participation • Dynamic over time • Combinations of MD • Environment influences • Personal factors and attitudes

  25. Clinical implications? • MD are very common and essential in very old age, the use increases over time and rapid changes occur • MD per see is not enough – for optimal use we need to take into account the person, the activities and environment • MDs have to be prescribed or tested out in the home environment • For this we need professional competence

More Related