PTOtherAssistive technology : the official journal of RESNA2017

Design and validation of a low cost, high-capacity weighing device for wheelchair users and bariatrics.

Brandon A Sherrod, Dustin A Dew, Rebecca Rogers and 2 others

PMID 27450105

WHAT IT FOUND

A low-cost wheelchair-accessible scale prototype matched a calibrated scale closely in 45 participants, with the smallest differences in manual wheelchair users.

It was rated safe and easy, but remains a prototype.

Key findings

01The prototype had a 360 kg capacity, weighed 18 kg, and had an estimated selling price of $575.

02Weight differences were lowest for manual wheelchair users and highest for power wheelchair users; one standing measurement was 22 kg less than the calibrated scale.

03Participants rated the prototype more favorable than the calibrated device on ease of use, accessibility, safety, comfort and privacy, and aesthetics, while overall preference was equal.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The sample was small, especially the power wheelchair group with 5 participants, so accuracy and preference findings for power wheelchair users are uncertain. Participants were recruited from one facility based on availability, not from a broader clinical population. Weight was measured once on each device, with no repeated measurements over time, which limits precision in estimating device error. One standing-group outlier changed the reported difference values, and the study notes that outliers and group composition affected results. The prototype had design gaps for power wheelchair users, including edge protection and platform size. The paper reports a prototype and estimated costs, not a market-ready device, and it notes future work before production. Participants said they were willing to pay much less than the estimated selling price, and the authors suggest clinical rather than home use in the short term.

Declared interests

The supplied text gives no funding source or specific conflict details. The declarations section states only 'Blinded manuscript'.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that this device is ready for routine clinical or home use. It was tested in 45 participants at one facility, had design gaps for power wheelchair users, and participants were willing to pay less than the estimated selling price.

Read it on PubMed →