Rollator usability from a nursing science perspective: A parallel qualitative content analysis of customer reviews on Amazon
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Care dependency and mobility restrictions often go hand in hand, increasing the risk of falls. Rollators are essential assistive devices that support individuals' mobility and functioning, with globally varying usage rates. While overall user satisfaction is rated high, usability challenges persist. Beyond advocating for user needs, nursing science should also address the role of rollators in enabling individuals to remain at home despite care needs, ensuring safety, and shaping informal and formal care settings. Purpose: This study examined usability aspects with a strong user-centred emphasis on subjective rollator satisfaction, using Amazon rollator reviews as data source. The aim was to validate previously found aspects and to explore unknown elements of human-rollator interaction. Methods: A total 1.026 rollator reviews from three price categories (200 €) were analysed. A Qualitative Content Analysis was employed, combining deductive and inductive coding methods. Deductive analysis was conducted based on the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0). Inductive analysis was based on the Grounded Theory Method to identify themes that were not fully considered in the deductive coding. Results: A total of 2243 deductive codes were assigned, with Ease of Use (489) and Comfort (458) being the most frequently coded categories. The inductive analysis revealed that users' expectations differ depending on the objectives of the primary and secondary users, who often make the purchasing decisions. Aesthetic appeal influenced rollator acceptance and reducing stigma. Usability has been shown to evolve over time, with experience, adaptation, and wear affecting long-term satisfaction and maintenance needs. Conclusions: This study highlights the complexity of rollator usability, shaped by material and non-materialistic user needs. Amazon reviews offer valuable insights, including secondary user perspectives. Nurses can play a key role in training and advising on rollator, contributing to better provision. As rollators shape care situations, it is essential for nursing science to address assistive technology to improve usability, safety, and overall quality of care. Study Registration: Not registered.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle