Psychosocial Impact of Powered Wheelchair, Users’ Satisfaction and Their Relation to Social Participation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall there is merit in this work, however some improvement are recommended.

Introduction

While the introduction provides key concepts, much of the literature is dated, given the current global drivers and position papers on the provision on AT from a human rights perspective.  It would be beneficial to review this section, providing a strong opening relating in the importance of participation for all people and importance of ‘doing’ as occupational beings.

Perhaps consider using the word ‘people’ instead of users’ at appropriate points in the writing e.g. ‘improve people’s daily routine’.  More inclusive language would strengthen the importance and meaning of powered mobility for people who need it.

Surveying satisfaction alone using suggested measures needs stronger justification as there is much debate in this regard.

 

Methods

Description of methods should be improved.

Quantitative study, rather than Qualitative – with the move towards mixed methods to engage with populations with complex impairments this needs justification.

Type of recruitment, sampling – how were 30 participants recruited

Administration of measures:  Where, when and how long it take to collect the data. Did the same person gather the all data, where they members of the organisations named, who had access to the data? How data was collected, by whom, face to face, self-administered – this is important as it could influences participant responses and reporting satisfaction levels.

Results

From a non-stats background I cannot comment entirely on the choice analysis.

This section could be presented with more clarity and provide some participation, psychosocial and activity related examples to enhance the overall presentation of the result and provide greater connection to the participants responses.

The data descriptors could be improved for consistency and clarity (%, n=) with tables and figures that link clearly.

Headings relating to sections being presented and correlations made would enhance this so key findings can be easily drawn from the paper.  

 

Discussion

Some key points are drawn from the results, however overall this could be improved. The contribution of these findings to the current evidence base is not clear. Again reviewing more current literature would enable development of this piece.

Satisfaction; Psychosocial impact ; Participation should be discussion in more detailed with consideration to appropriate provision, service delivery processes and the impact on participation and in turn equality of opportunity and inclusion.

These results provide some indicators for more in-depth research to understand participants’ experiences. A stronger argument is required as to how it may inform service improvement etc. 

Limitations of this work should be expanded, discussing the use of satisfaction indicators, who is filling in the questionnaires and the limitations regarding the depth of information gathered.

Conclusions

This section should be developed further, while some key points are highlighted conclusions regarding next steps and future research are weak.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe there are a few typographical errors in this manuscript, but otherwise it is a very clear presentation of a nice study.

In the abstract, line 24, the acronym "PE" is used, I think you mean "PW" here.

on page 7, lines 218-220 seem to be residual instructions for this section of the manuscript, I think these two sentences should be removed from the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Very interesting, well organized, and relevant paper. 

If, as stated, it is considered important that the results obtained from the study can be useful to clinicians to improve AT services, it could be described how points 2 and 3 of the conclusions can be.

I do not find a correspondence between the discussion section paragraph  on environmental barriers and other sections of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Some very minor additions have been made to the manuscript making slight improvement.

Much has been written on this subject which is not utilised or cited in this paper. A major review of the current literature is required.

Casey et al (2013); Montenson et al (2015); Kenyon et al  (2018)  to name a few examples

The previous comments made remain the same. ‍

Author Response

We send a new manuscript with the revisions pointed in colors and a document with a point-by-point response to the comments. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Many of the items suggested to review have been responded to, be mindful of repetition.  Some of the additions could be presented more clearly. For example: p.2 lines 46-48 and line 61 - please review the whole paper errors and editing issues.

 

 

Author Response

Dear revisor,

We have made the changes kindly sugested.  We send the reviews in 2 documents. One with the word track changes pointed and other in a final version without those marks.

Kind regards 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf