MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414625104 · doi:10.1016/j.ijnsa.2025.100422

Rollator usability from a nursing science perspective: A parallel qualitative content analysis of customer reviews on Amazon

2025· article· en· W4414625104 on OpenAlex
Marcel Schmucker, Andreas Küpper, Laura E. Hahn, Cornelia Mahler, Astrid Elsbernd

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Studies Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsUsabilityAmazon rainforestContent analysisQualitative analysisQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.318
GPT teacher head0.644
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it