Effects of a consumer driven home modification intervention on community participation for people with mobility disabilities

Greiman, Lillie; Ravesloot, Craig; Shinnick-Goddard, Kelsey; Ward, Bryce

doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2021.101210

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the (33/60) studies describing the gender composition of their samples, 14 involved women majority samples [ 8 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 65 , 69 , 72 – 79 ], nine had men majority samples [ 43 , 46 , 67 , 68 , 80 – 84 ] and 10 had approximately equal gender representation [ 51 , 66 , 71 , 78 , 79 , 85 – 89 ]. Among the few studies (7/60) describing the racial or ethnic composition of their samples, six included a majority of white participants [ 50 , 72 , 77 , 81 , 86 , 90 ] and one had a mixed ethnic representation [ 82 ]. Ages of the samples ranged considerably with 17 focusing on elderly/older adults [ 46 , 53 , 66 , 68 – 70 , 73 , 74 , 76 , 78 , 80 , 81 , 83 , 87 , 91 – 93 ], 12 examined adults [ 8 , 43 , 49 , 65 , 71 , 72 , 75 , ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the few studies (7/60) describing the racial or ethnic composition of their samples, six included a majority of white participants [ 50 , 72 , 77 , 81 , 86 , 90 ] and one had a mixed ethnic representation [ 82 ]. Ages of the samples ranged considerably with 17 focusing on elderly/older adults [ 46 , 53 , 66 , 68 – 70 , 73 , 74 , 76 , 78 , 80 , 81 , 83 , 87 , 91 – 93 ], 12 examined adults [ 8 , 43 , 49 , 65 , 71 , 72 , 75 , 79 , 82 , 86 , 88 , 94 ], six included a wide age range [ 11 , 51 , 77 , 85 , 89 , 95 ], while three focused specifically on children/youth and their caregivers [ 67 , 84 , 96 ]. Of the studies (26/60) reporting on housing location, 11 focused on accessible housing in urban / suburban areas [ 53 , 69 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 86 , ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ages of the samples ranged considerably with 17 focusing on elderly/older adults [ 46 , 53 , 66 , 68 – 70 , 73 , 74 , 76 , 78 , 80 , 81 , 83 , 87 , 91 – 93 ], 12 examined adults [ 8 , 43 , 49 , 65 , 71 , 72 , 75 , 79 , 82 , 86 , 88 , 94 ], six included a wide age range [ 11 , 51 , 77 , 85 , 89 , 95 ], while three focused specifically on children/youth and their caregivers [ 67 , 84 , 96 ]. Of the studies (26/60) reporting on housing location, 11 focused on accessible housing in urban / suburban areas [ 53 , 69 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 86 , 87 , 95 , 97 – 99 ], one in a rural area [ 100 ] and 14 in mixed locations [ 8 , 23 , 43 , 67 , …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Less than half of the studies (25/60) described housing types, which included single-family homes, apartments and multi-family housing. Fourteen studies involved mixed representation of housing status [ 43 , 46 , 68 , 72 , 73 , 75 , 77 , 83 , 85 , 89 , 95 , 96 , 100 , 101 ]. In six studies most participants owned their own home [ 8 , 69 , 72 , 76 , 84 , 87 ] and in three studies the majority rented [ 23 , 65 , 66 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other home modifications noted in this study included entryways (i.e., ramp, grab bars, porch/deck modifications) living area, interior stairs (i.e., lift chairs and elevators), doorways (i.e., widening and lever handles), bedroom (i.e., expanding room or moving room to ground floor), kitchen (i.e., lowering or modifying the cabinets and countertops) and flooring (i.e., replacing carpet with hardwood) [ 72 ]. Moreover, people with mobility disabilities in the US reported that changes to the bathroom were the most frequent home modification followed by changes to facilitate cleaning, improve safety, home entrance and mobility within the home [ 77 ]. Likewise, for older adults using a walker in New Zealand, Kuboshima and McIntosh [ 55 ] highlighted the following design elements and considerations for accessible home modifications: layout of space to avoid needing to turn around in small enclosed spaces, removing ground-level floor differences, minimizing interior doors, avoiding sharp corners, locating door handles, sufficient space in bathrooms and garage, and L- or I-shaped kitchens.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Accessible independent housing for people with disabilities: A scoping review of promising practices, policies and interventions

Lindsay,

Fuentes,

Ragunathan

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Accessible housing is imperative to enabling independent living for many people with disabilities; yet, research consistently shows how people with disabilities often lack appropriate accessible housing and are more likely to experience unaffordable, insecure, and/or poor quality housing. Therefore, the aim of this study was to understand promising practices, policies and interventions regarding accessible independent housing for people with disabilities. Methods We conducted a scoping review that involved searching seven international literature databases that identified 4831 studies, 60 of which met our inclusion criteria. Results The reviewed studies involved 18 countries over a 20-year period. Our review highlighted the following key trends: (1) removing barriers to obtaining accessible housing (e.g., advocacy, builders enhancing housing supply, subsidies and financial incentives); (2) policies influencing accessible housing; (3) interventions to enhance accessible housing (i.e., home modifications, smart homes, mobile applications and other experimental devices); and (4) the impact of accessible independent housing on health and wellbeing. Conclusions Our findings emphasize the importance of accessible housing for people with disabilities and the urgent need to advance accessible housing options.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Accessible independent housing for people with disabilities: A scoping review of promising practices, policies and interventions

Lindsay,

Fuentes,

Ragunathan

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Design Guidelines for Effective Long‐term Care Needs of Older Adults at Home

Shin

2023

Transforming Issues in Housing Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interventions to improve outdoor mobility among people living with disabilities: A systematic review

Ringsten,

Ivanic,

Iwarsson

et al. 2024

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAround 15% of the global population live with some form of disabilities and experience worse health outcomes, less participation in the community and are part of fewer activities outside the home. Outdoor mobility interventions aim to improve the ability to move, travel and orient outside the home and could influence the number of activities outside the home, participation and quality of life. However, outdoor mobility interventions may also lead to harm like falls or injuries or have unforeseen effects which could lead to mortality or hospitalization.ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy of interventions aiming to improve outdoor mobility for adults living with disabilities and to explore if the efficacy varies between different conditions and different intervention components.Search MethodsStandard, extensive Campbell search methods were used, including a total of 12 databases searched during January 2023, including trial registries.Selection CriteriaOnly randomized controlled trials were included, focusing on people living with disabilities, comparing interventions to improve outdoor mobility to control interventions as well as comparing different types of interventions to improve outdoor mobility.Data Collection and AnalysisStandard methodological procedures expected by Campbell were used. The following important outcomes were 1. Activity outside the home; 2. Engagement in everyday life activities; 3. Participation; 4. Health‐related Quality of Life; 5. Major harms; 6. Minor harms. The impact of the interventions was evaluated in the shorter (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) after starting the intervention. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), and standardized mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias 2‐tool and the GRADE‐framework were used to assess the certainty of the evidence.Main ResultsThe screening comprised of 12.894 studies and included 22 studies involving 2.675 people living with disabilities and identified 12 ongoing studies. All reported outcomes except one (reported in one study, some concerns of bias) had overall high risk of bias. Thirteen studies were conducted in participants with disabilities due to stroke, five studies with older adults living with disabilities, two studies with wheelchair users, one study in participants with disabilities after a hip fracture, and one study in participants with cognitive impairments.Skill training interventions versus control interventions (16 studies)The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of skill training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility among all people living with disabilities both in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life activities among people with disabilities in the shorter term (RR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.84; I2 = 7%; RD: 0.15; 95% CI: −0.02 to 0.32; I2 = 71%; 692 participants; three studies; low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain in the longer term, based on very low certainty evidence. Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with disabilities due to cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter term (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.81; I2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve health‐related quality of life in the shorter term (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.88; I2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence).Physical training interventions versus control interventions (five studies)The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of physical training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for: Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.61; I2 = NA; 228 participants; one study; low certainty evidence) and longer term (≥7 months) (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.54; I2 = NA; 216 participants; one study; low certainty evidence).Comparison of different outdoor mobility interventions (one study)The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of outdoor mobility interventions of different lengths in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. No studies explored the efficacy of other types of interventions.Authors’ ConclusionsTwenty‐two studies of interventions to improve outdoor mobility for people living with disabilities were identified, but the evidence still remains uncertain about most benefits and harms of these interventions, both in the short‐ and long term. This is primarily related to risk of bias, small underpowered studies and limited reporting of important outcomes for people living with disabilities. For people with disabilities, skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life in the short term, and improve activity outside the home and health‐related quality of life for people with cognitive impairments in the short term. Still, this is based on low certainty evidence from few studies and should be interpreted with caution. One study with low certainty evidence suggests that physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the short term. In addition, the effect sizes across all outcomes were considered small or trivial, and could be of limited relevance to people living with disabilities. The evidence is currently uncertain if there are interventions that can improve outdoor mobility for people with disabilities, and can improve other important outcomes, while avoiding harms. To guide decisions about the use of interventions to improve outdoor mobility, future studies should use more rigorous design and report important outcomes for people with disabilities to reduce the current uncertainty.

show abstract

Effects of a consumer driven home modification intervention on community participation for people with mobility disabilities

Cited by 13 publications

References 25 publications

Accessible independent housing for people with disabilities: A scoping review of promising practices, policies and interventions

Accessible independent housing for people with disabilities: A scoping review of promising practices, policies and interventions

Design Guidelines for Effective Long‐term Care Needs of Older Adults at Home

Interventions to improve outdoor mobility among people living with disabilities: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About