Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Abstract Older adults tend to need assistance for ambulation with the progression of aging or when suffering from diseases. With technological advances, servo-assistive robotic rollators are available besides canes and walkers to assist disabled older adults. This study aimed to investigate the appropriate person and conditions for using a servo-assistive robotic rollator and its effects. Participants were 10 older adults living in the community (80.5±9.7 years; 4 males and 6 females) who used a servo-assistive robotic rollator (RT.2). After evaluating their physical (body composition, diseases, care need level, and SF-36), mental (MMSE, GDS-15, and WHO-5), and living conditions, they began using the device in daily life. We evaluated their ways of using it and the effects of its use through our observation and their self-report. Participants suffered from a stroke, spinal bone fracture, Parkinson’s disease, osteoarthritis of the knees, or optic neuromyelitis. At the study’s onset, cognitive impairment (MMSE<23/30), depressive states (GDS-15≧5), decreased grip strength, and decreased muscle mass (InBody S10) was found in one, three, six, and one participant, respectively. Most participants had a clear purpose for using it, such as going outside by foot or maintaining muscle strength. During the three-month observation period, no participant fell while using it. Some participants used it in a rehabilitation program at home, while others used it in daily life and went to several places with its assistance. Servo-assistive Robotic Rollators enabled older adults with difficulty in ambulation to walk outside safely and provided a greater opportunity to participate in society.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.